4 ms·

But is this not a fundamental problem if you expect everything to be available for free? For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users gene

But is this not a fundamental problem if you expect everything to be available for free? For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper.

avgcorrection 3y ago
sigh What? I just described two scenarios where I’m on a paid plan and I still get ads. > For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper. Printed, paid-for newspapers also have ads.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Not only that, but back in those days, the ads probably generated the lion's share of their revenues, along with the "classified ads" section (which is also ads, just not so commercial). That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. Unlike today, though, the ads in newspapers weren't annoying: they were just print, and didn't pop up dynamically in front of the article you were reading, and no one tried to shame you for not looking at them, unlike today's HN users.
  - 0x0203 3y ago
    Nor did they monitor what you looked at on the page, track how you "interacted" with them, and sell all that data about you to anyone who would give them a couple of bucks.
  - Shish2k 3y ago
    > That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. AFAIK for most newspapers and magazines, the cost on the label was mostly there so that readers would feel like the publication was serious - differentiating them from the free papers which were clearly spam and / or propaganda
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      Interesting, thanks for the info. Yet, despite the newspaper being fully supported by plain, simple, black-and-white print ads (and maybe some color inserts later which were easily discarded), they managed to pay for serious journalists, and they didn't whine about how they need to track you and spy on you and force you to look at obnoxious pop-up ads to make enough money to survive.
- rezonant 3y ago
  To be fair "logged in" doesn't imply paid. Might want to edit to clarify if you still can
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Thanks, I did that now.
- beej71 3y ago
  As a side note, I figure I wouldn't mind web ads if they were non-animated black and white. Some super forward thinking ad agency should do this and set a trend!! ;)
bee_rider 3y ago
Hard to say, nobody has managed to replicate the old IRL newspaper business model. You used to be able to get a subscription, or just buy a single paper from a store or a box. The latter is much more convenient, but the former was the only one implemented for the web. For example, I don’t care to have a subscription to the economist, so I didn’t read this article. If I could pay like $1 for it, I probably would. But it would require a new service, I’m not going to make an account to pay $1, a good number of newspapers would have to work out a shared system before this sort of thing would be interesting. Unfortunately the ad-net has sucked all the oxygen out of the room for this kind of business model.
- gosub100 3y ago
  What they need is to combine and meter. I.e. one $x0/mo subscription gets you access to a network of X newspapers, all with one log-in, no ads, and maybe coupons or some other perk. Then it gives you say 30 articles a month, and pays the publisher based on what you read. You're never going to get rid of freeloaders, so maybe have free-tier AI-generated articles and put thoughtful, detailed investigative reporting behind the paywall. Or (for the case of a local paper) have the free-tier not include photos, or grayscale photos, etc. Just tease them to pay for the real version. Another way to monetize is to make it interactive and bring back comments. Allow a well-regulated peanut gallery for each article, but have it actively moderated, require people to use their real names, and set a high bar for what comments are even allowed. Have journalists actively engage with them. A comment will only be published if it adds value. Then encourage people to have spirited discussion about each article. And guess what, actively commenting will cost you admission.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I think a system of N articles per month invites these low-effort AI articles that you mention, and adds a huge inter-company political problem of policing what exactly a low effort article is. The incentive is to be the company that is engaging with the system, but putting in the least effort per article, while still passing the “worth money” bar. On top of financial motivations, newspapers often have different political alignments for example, I suspect some of them basically hate each other; a system where they get along and engage in good faith is too much. I’d rather see an account where you dump money in, the site can say “buy this article for $x”, and it asks your account for that money. It doesn’t even really need to be a centralized site, it could be an API that multiple services can implement, or whatever.

avgcorrection 3y ago

sigh What? I just described two scenarios where I’m on a paid plan and I still get ads. > For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper. Printed, paid-for newspapers also have ads.

shiroiuma 3y ago
Not only that, but back in those days, the ads probably generated the lion's share of their revenues, along with the "classified ads" section (which is also ads, just not so commercial). That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. Unlike today, though, the ads in newspapers weren't annoying: they were just print, and didn't pop up dynamically in front of the article you were reading, and no one tried to shame you for not looking at them, unlike today's HN users.
- 0x0203 3y ago
  Nor did they monitor what you looked at on the page, track how you "interacted" with them, and sell all that data about you to anyone who would give them a couple of bucks.
- Shish2k 3y ago
  > That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. AFAIK for most newspapers and magazines, the cost on the label was mostly there so that readers would feel like the publication was serious - differentiating them from the free papers which were clearly spam and / or propaganda
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the info. Yet, despite the newspaper being fully supported by plain, simple, black-and-white print ads (and maybe some color inserts later which were easily discarded), they managed to pay for serious journalists, and they didn't whine about how they need to track you and spy on you and force you to look at obnoxious pop-up ads to make enough money to survive.
rezonant 3y ago
To be fair "logged in" doesn't imply paid. Might want to edit to clarify if you still can
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Thanks, I did that now.
beej71 3y ago
As a side note, I figure I wouldn't mind web ads if they were non-animated black and white. Some super forward thinking ad agency should do this and set a trend!! ;)

bee_rider 3y ago

Hard to say, nobody has managed to replicate the old IRL newspaper business model. You used to be able to get a subscription, or just buy a single paper from a store or a box. The latter is much more convenient, but the former was the only one implemented for the web. For example, I don’t care to have a subscription to the economist, so I didn’t read this article. If I could pay like $1 for it, I probably would. But it would require a new service, I’m not going to make an account to pay $1, a good number of newspapers would have to work out a shared system before this sort of thing would be interesting. Unfortunately the ad-net has sucked all the oxygen out of the room for this kind of business model.

gosub100 3y ago
What they need is to combine and meter. I.e. one $x0/mo subscription gets you access to a network of X newspapers, all with one log-in, no ads, and maybe coupons or some other perk. Then it gives you say 30 articles a month, and pays the publisher based on what you read. You're never going to get rid of freeloaders, so maybe have free-tier AI-generated articles and put thoughtful, detailed investigative reporting behind the paywall. Or (for the case of a local paper) have the free-tier not include photos, or grayscale photos, etc. Just tease them to pay for the real version. Another way to monetize is to make it interactive and bring back comments. Allow a well-regulated peanut gallery for each article, but have it actively moderated, require people to use their real names, and set a high bar for what comments are even allowed. Have journalists actively engage with them. A comment will only be published if it adds value. Then encourage people to have spirited discussion about each article. And guess what, actively commenting will cost you admission.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I think a system of N articles per month invites these low-effort AI articles that you mention, and adds a huge inter-company political problem of policing what exactly a low effort article is. The incentive is to be the company that is engaging with the system, but putting in the least effort per article, while still passing the “worth money” bar. On top of financial motivations, newspapers often have different political alignments for example, I suspect some of them basically hate each other; a system where they get along and engage in good faith is too much. I’d rather see an account where you dump money in, the site can say “buy this article for $x”, and it asks your account for that money. It doesn’t even really need to be a centralized site, it could be an API that multiple services can implement, or whatever.