3 ms·
> about the people who don't read news I don't think you're listening, because the point is that these people do read the news. That's what this report is abou
by phailhaus 4y ago
> about the people who don't read news
I don't think you're listening, because the point is that these people do read the news. That's what this report is about: they read the news, but they're not willing to pay for a recurring subscription. Lecturing one person (me) about the value of subscriptions is not going to change anything. I do pay for a few subscriptions. There's just far more that I can't read because it's just not worth the monthly cost. And that's the reality of the newspaper business.
- 1123581321 4y agoI have been reading closely. We're on a subthread started by you saying you thought it was audacious to charge a subscription for news and microtransactions are more appropriate. Now you've said you do pay for news subscriptions, which I think someone wouldn't do if they didn't understand the value, so I think we've gotten to the bottom of this.
- phailhaus 4y agoYou're missing the forest for a single tree (me). Again, the point is that there are way more publications that I want to read but I can't due to those monthly subscriptions. It is audacious for newspapers to demand recurring subscriptions, but I have no other choice, so I've picked two. This model is not sustainable, as the report demonstrates. There is a huge market that is willing to pay less than a monthly recurring subscription that is totally unaddressed.
- 1123581321 4y agoYes, there is also a market for paid aggregated news. Apple News+ (acquisition of Texture) is probably best known. Some obvious limitations, of course.