47 ms·

https://web.archive.org/web/20231021002437/https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-talent-factory-ursus-magana-creator-economy/ https://web.archive.org/web/202310210

• withinboredom 3y ago
  Thanks. I apparently "ran out of free articles" despite not going to Wired.com in years.
  • Liquix 3y ago
    Does this type of practice really convert casual readers to paying customers? It seems like it would just drive traffic away from the site.
    • withinboredom 3y ago
      Maybe. I refuse to pay for news though, on principle. I grew up with my dad working for the newspaper (in sales) and as far as I'm concerned, they make plenty of money through those channels and they don't need my money. If they need my money, then they're doing something wrong, got greedy, are "too big for their britches" (so to speak), or some combination of the above. Other people feel differently, and that's fine.
      • earthscienceman 3y ago
        I understand this sentiment but it's extremely short sighted. Paying for news is about incentives. Much like Google having poor incentives to provide good unbiased search functionality based on the fact that their revenue comes from advertising, news work poorly aligns with advertising incentives also. Whether you contribute to that or not is your choice.
        • spondylosaurus 3y ago
          One reason I subscribe to the New Yorker (beyond enjoying their content) is that they have legendarily high standards around fact-checking, which isn't something you can maintain unless you're paying people to do it. So I'd like to help them continue paying the people who do it.
        • bobsmooth 3y ago
          HNers will pay $10 a month for a google replacement but won't support the foundation of democracy for a few bucks.
      • hotpotamus 3y ago
        My mother has worked in local journalism for half a century - mostly radio, but some newspaper and the very occasional TV appearance. If they're making a lot of money, she sure isn't seeing it. Maybe whatever private equity company that owns the station this year is doing well, but they're not known for sharing with the other boys and girls so to speak. It's a shame because from what I can tell, she was a very good reporter but the role is reduced to a shadow of what it was when I was a kid. Obviously they're now talking about replacing her with AI, and she's about ready for a severance check I think.
        • withinboredom 3y ago
          I'd feel differently if and when journalism is as transparent about where the money goes (show the budget, even if just %'s). If I knew that my $10 subscription was actually going to journalism ... I'd pay $10. But it's not transparent, and those sales guys/gals are making bank and who knows where the money is actually going. Clearly, not the journalists.
    • ssalka 3y ago
      all it's taught me to do is develop muscle memory for looking for an archive link in the comments or checking wayback machine
    • IAmGraydon 3y ago
      It makes no sense to me when it comes to actual news because I can usually get the same info from 10 other sites for free. For unique content, I could see it working. My problem is when these sites charge to see the articles and still run ads right in the middle of the editorial. You get to do one or the other, not both.
      • underseacables 3y ago
        I was a subscriber to wired magazine for over 10 years, but they kept reducing the articles and increasing the advertisements, to the point where 80% of the magazine was just advertisements.
    • rqtwteye 3y ago
      I think it drives people away. A micropayment system with a few cents per article would be way better in my opinion.
      • fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
        Yeah, I really liked Blendle for this but they recently shut down US operations for some reason.
        • selfhoster11 3y ago
          I think the reason being these were more like "minipayments" or "centipayments", and not micropayments. When I used them, there was a real mental friction for deciding whether a particular article will be worth the $0.07-0.21 that it was priced at. A far better model is either do actual micro payments, meaning sub-1 cent so you don't feel ripped off if an article was not what you were after, or to let you pay what you want after reading the article. The economics of making this work is left as an exercise to the reader.
          • fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
            I think what I’d like is a service that’s about $14/mo with all you can read news. Then something like $7 of your subscription fee is divided across sources based on the amount you read them, tidal-style
    • underseacables 3y ago
      I think it reinforces the resistance mindset. Humans don't like barriers to something they want, and they get satisfaction from getting around the barrier. The more often they do it, the more reinforcing it becomes
  • teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    VPN?
  • IAmGraydon 3y ago
    If you’re viewing on a mobile device, turn on reader mode and you can get the entire article. It doesn’t work for all paywalls, but appears to work for this one.
  • Kiro 3y ago
    I "ran out" when switching back to the tab in the middle of the article.