4 ms·

I don't think it's true that "nobody is willing to pay". As the article points out large outfits like The Washington Post, and smaller ones like Politico and Ta

I don't think it's true that "nobody is willing to pay". As the article points out large outfits like The Washington Post, and smaller ones like Politico and Talking Points Memo, and niche ones like Financial Times, get most of their revenue from subscribers, not ads. What is inarguable is that the old model of ripping off advertisers and misinforming readers is finally dead, but it has taken a long time for the operators of that model to internalize the reality. The death blow was dealt by Craigslist, so we've been waiting quite a while. Personally, I refuse to listen to pleas to "support local news" coming from outlets that have been trying to destroy everything I value for decades. There may be 1 or 2 worthwhile journalists working at the LA Times, for example, but I will never ever give that organization even one dollar. Those journalists need to leave that paper as far as I am concerned.

CPLX 3y ago
The old model is working fine it’s just that Google and Meta are using illegally acquired monopoly power to take all the money for themselves.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Google and Meta have brought more advertisers to the doorsteps of news outfits than they could possibly have imagined, but it has also allowed advertisers to direct their spending to outlets that are actually effective. Google and Meta also absorb all of the costs to host and serve the advertisements, acquire the inventory, and operate the marketplace. Newspapers get everything for free now and they are still whining about it. Before Craigslist, local newspapers in the USA got the majority of their ad revenues from ripping off the public for classified ads. It used to cost $50 to list your used car, or advertise your garage sale. If you are a fan of the "disruption" that Silicon Valley people are always yakking about, this is the gold standard.
- Gimpei 3y ago
  Meh. If a ton of competitors rushed in and drove ad price down to marginal cost, they’d still be screwed. They got all their money from classifieds and eBay and Craigslist are to blame for the death of that business model.

CPLX 3y ago

The old model is working fine it’s just that Google and Meta are using illegally acquired monopoly power to take all the money for themselves.

jeffbee 3y ago
Google and Meta have brought more advertisers to the doorsteps of news outfits than they could possibly have imagined, but it has also allowed advertisers to direct their spending to outlets that are actually effective. Google and Meta also absorb all of the costs to host and serve the advertisements, acquire the inventory, and operate the marketplace. Newspapers get everything for free now and they are still whining about it. Before Craigslist, local newspapers in the USA got the majority of their ad revenues from ripping off the public for classified ads. It used to cost $50 to list your used car, or advertise your garage sale. If you are a fan of the "disruption" that Silicon Valley people are always yakking about, this is the gold standard.
Gimpei 3y ago
Meh. If a ton of competitors rushed in and drove ad price down to marginal cost, they’d still be screwed. They got all their money from classifieds and eBay and Craigslist are to blame for the death of that business model.