3 ms·

Unfortunately, no one buys subscriptions any more, and advertisers have moved to Facebook and Google. The ad-based internet has conditioned people to expect fr

Unfortunately, no one buys subscriptions any more, and advertisers have moved to Facebook and Google. The ad-based internet has conditioned people to expect free content, and the internet ad model incentivizes click-bait low quality content because it's easy to publish and provides a place to hang ads from.

bell-cot 3y ago
Yeah...though SciAm seemed to be in a long, slow decline for a decade+ before "free with ads on the web" was really a thing. And (that I've found) there is nothing comparable (to the old SciAm) that is free on the web. Did the demographic that was willing to think hard & long enough to enjoy the old SciAm gradually die off? Or did they just replace eating paid-for healthy brain food with eating free junk food. (FWIW - I pretty much dropped all the "premium" subscriptions I once had - all dead-tree editions - between ~2000 and ~2010, as either their quality went to crap, or they ceased publication.)
- snakeboy 3y ago
  I don't think it's died off, rather it's found in more independent blogs/newsletters at this point. On one hand, the information is generally free and more accessible to a wider global audience, but maybe that exposure is biased towards scientists that are themselves strong writers. Whereas in a world where high-quality science writers are funded, the researcher doesn't have to master this skill to have their work effectively popularized.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Did the demographic that was willing to think hard & long enough to enjoy the old SciAm gradually die off? That demographic were always a minority of the general population and I think they still exist. Maybe at one point Scientific American had some pride and catered to this niche because they thought it was socially constructive or something, but clearly they're now gearing towards a more... mass audience.. to get more money of course. I don't know how else you'd explain an image of the wrong ocean. If they couldn't get the right image, why include an image at all? Of course pictures are appealing for mass audiences, a substantial fraction of whom are barely literate and need pretty pictures (even if irrelevant) to encourage them along.
- pomian 3y ago
  I think that demographic is now here. I'm mean on HN. (If they find it.)
- yummypaint 3y ago
  For me it was when they formally killed off the amateur scientist column. It had itself been in decline for a decade or more before that, but some of their old articles were really excelent. The replacement these days seems to be educational youtubers.

bell-cot 3y ago

Yeah...though SciAm seemed to be in a long, slow decline for a decade+ before "free with ads on the web" was really a thing. And (that I've found) there is nothing comparable (to the old SciAm) that is free on the web. Did the demographic that was willing to think hard & long enough to enjoy the old SciAm gradually die off? Or did they just replace eating paid-for healthy brain food with eating free junk food. (FWIW - I pretty much dropped all the "premium" subscriptions I once had - all dead-tree editions - between ~2000 and ~2010, as either their quality went to crap, or they ceased publication.)

snakeboy 3y ago
I don't think it's died off, rather it's found in more independent blogs/newsletters at this point. On one hand, the information is generally free and more accessible to a wider global audience, but maybe that exposure is biased towards scientists that are themselves strong writers. Whereas in a world where high-quality science writers are funded, the researcher doesn't have to master this skill to have their work effectively popularized.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Did the demographic that was willing to think hard & long enough to enjoy the old SciAm gradually die off? That demographic were always a minority of the general population and I think they still exist. Maybe at one point Scientific American had some pride and catered to this niche because they thought it was socially constructive or something, but clearly they're now gearing towards a more... mass audience.. to get more money of course. I don't know how else you'd explain an image of the wrong ocean. If they couldn't get the right image, why include an image at all? Of course pictures are appealing for mass audiences, a substantial fraction of whom are barely literate and need pretty pictures (even if irrelevant) to encourage them along.
pomian 3y ago
I think that demographic is now here. I'm mean on HN. (If they find it.)
yummypaint 3y ago
For me it was when they formally killed off the amateur scientist column. It had itself been in decline for a decade or more before that, but some of their old articles were really excelent. The replacement these days seems to be educational youtubers.