4 ms·

> the magazine had a $20 million deficit and months earlier had laid off 17% of its newsroom... He ended up raising subscription prices by more than 50%, and ma

> the magazine had a $20 million deficit and months earlier had laid off 17% of its newsroom... He ended up raising subscription prices by more than 50%, and made it harder for people to read stories without paying... Subscriptions now account for two-thirds of revenue, compared with a little less than half when Thompson took the helm... Thompson said plenty of challenges remain, including finding ways to sustain subscription growth and attracting young audiences. I like The Atlantic well enough, and am glad it's not circling the drain like so many others. However, nothing in this article makes me believe they did more than reduce costs (aka lay off people) and extract more money from their existing pool of committed subscribers. That may not be the case, but I see nothing here that argues against that hypothesis. And I think it's safe to say that that would not be a good long-term strategy. (I assume 'subscription growth' is subscription revenue growth, not necessarily the number of subscriptions, based on its use in the article)

sdwr 3y ago
I read a lot of hate online about how executives are evil, greedy, exploitative leeches. Here's a story looking at the other angle - this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people, and maintaining an American institution. Sure, what he did might not have been novel or revolutionary, but someone had to do it. And you only get one shot!
- llm_trw 3y ago
  >this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people He sounds like his doing his best to lessen that burden.
  - falcor84 3y ago
    It does, but on the other hand, especially after reading Bullshit Jobs, I'll argue that a business has something akin to a moral obligation to not create more roles than are actually needed to run the business.
- al_borland 3y ago
  We never really know how the executives feel about the layoffs behind the scenes. Sure, some are done for greed, but a lot probably do fall into the category of sacrificing the few to save the many. Then there are those in the middle who need to deliver the news, who have to shoulder the burden, but are just doing their job. I worked with a guy who moved up from an entry level job to director pretty fast. I trained him when he started, and when he made director I was working adjacent to his team, not under him (we had the same boss). The first time he had to lay someone off he asked me if I wanted to go to the bar afterward. It was not a celebration, it was depressed drinking. He occasionally said some things between long stretches of silence. Even though the decision wasn’t his, he felt a heavy burden of responsibility for those people’s lives, he was gutted having to lay someone off, and felt like he failed them… even when there was nothing he could have done, it was how the company operated. He never showed this at work, and always tried to appear objective and detached to some degree, but every layoff was like this, and he felt like I was the only person he could talk to. If I wasn’t there I’m sure he’d just drink alone and spiral as the guilt ate him alive. But to his employees, he was the jerk boss who laid off their co-worker and didn’t care.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I didn't mean it to be a harsh criticism. What I'm saying is that if my conjecture is correct, they will need some other strategy for sustaining The Atlantic long term. So, more like let's not write articles implying the job is done yet.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
But "attracting young audiences" is growth in the number of subscriptions. I think you're right; jacking up prices on your existing subscribers can raise revenue, but if it means you never get any new subscribers, your company is even more doomed than it used to be.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  Attracting young audiences is what he wants to do, not what he's done yet. I'm just struggling to think how you do that by increasing subscription costs and restricting free readership. It's a tough job, I wish him well.
MattGaiser 3y ago
> extract more money from their existing pool of committed subscribers. This is something a lot of companies are learning. A lot of your current customers will pay a ton more, so better to dump the less committed customers and focus on the willing to pay niche. Explains the decline of customer service in many ways. Unless you pay a lot of money, you probably are not worth serving well, as you weren't committed to the product in the first place.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  This is painfully true and so many excellent sources suffer because of it. By and large, people _will not_ pay if they don't have to and don't have to show their face. I could write about this ad nauseam, even the most ostensibly wealthy and honest communities, you still get something silly like 95% free 5% paying. It's not even necessarily malicious, it's just that people have this deeply embedded feeling that they are entitled to digital content, without ever really thinking about monetization.
BlandDuck 3y ago
> And I think it's safe to say that that would not be a good long-term strategy. Why is this not a good long-term strategy? What is a better strategy? It seems like the alternative may well have been to go bankrupt and go out of business, and that definitely isn't a great long-term strategy.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  If the strategy is just to recognize there are n subscribers who are dedicated readers of The Atlantic and are unlikely to drop their subscription if you increase the price 50%, then this is a bad long-term strategy because those people will eventually die or drop off due to attrition. The long term strategy should involve successfully bringing in new loyal subscribers. I'm sure they know this, and want it to happen, but the bit about charging more and making it harder to read for free would seem to make it harder to get new subscribers on board. So, there's a reading that says their short term profitability is hurting their long term profitability.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
> I see nothing here that argues against that hypothesis I think the hypothesis is even harder to doubt if looked at from another angle. Namely that Thompson had guessed, correctly, that the services the Atlantic provides have been mispriced for a long time.

sdwr 3y ago

I read a lot of hate online about how executives are evil, greedy, exploitative leeches. Here's a story looking at the other angle - this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people, and maintaining an American institution. Sure, what he did might not have been novel or revolutionary, but someone had to do it. And you only get one shot!

llm_trw 3y ago
>this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people He sounds like his doing his best to lessen that burden.
- falcor84 3y ago
  It does, but on the other hand, especially after reading Bullshit Jobs, I'll argue that a business has something akin to a moral obligation to not create more roles than are actually needed to run the business.
al_borland 3y ago
We never really know how the executives feel about the layoffs behind the scenes. Sure, some are done for greed, but a lot probably do fall into the category of sacrificing the few to save the many. Then there are those in the middle who need to deliver the news, who have to shoulder the burden, but are just doing their job. I worked with a guy who moved up from an entry level job to director pretty fast. I trained him when he started, and when he made director I was working adjacent to his team, not under him (we had the same boss). The first time he had to lay someone off he asked me if I wanted to go to the bar afterward. It was not a celebration, it was depressed drinking. He occasionally said some things between long stretches of silence. Even though the decision wasn’t his, he felt a heavy burden of responsibility for those people’s lives, he was gutted having to lay someone off, and felt like he failed them… even when there was nothing he could have done, it was how the company operated. He never showed this at work, and always tried to appear objective and detached to some degree, but every layoff was like this, and he felt like I was the only person he could talk to. If I wasn’t there I’m sure he’d just drink alone and spiral as the guilt ate him alive. But to his employees, he was the jerk boss who laid off their co-worker and didn’t care.
karaterobot 3y ago
I didn't mean it to be a harsh criticism. What I'm saying is that if my conjecture is correct, they will need some other strategy for sustaining The Atlantic long term. So, more like let's not write articles implying the job is done yet.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

But "attracting young audiences" is growth in the number of subscriptions. I think you're right; jacking up prices on your existing subscribers can raise revenue, but if it means you never get any new subscribers, your company is even more doomed than it used to be.

karaterobot 3y ago
Attracting young audiences is what he wants to do, not what he's done yet. I'm just struggling to think how you do that by increasing subscription costs and restricting free readership. It's a tough job, I wish him well.

MattGaiser 3y ago

> extract more money from their existing pool of committed subscribers. This is something a lot of companies are learning. A lot of your current customers will pay a ton more, so better to dump the less committed customers and focus on the willing to pay niche. Explains the decline of customer service in many ways. Unless you pay a lot of money, you probably are not worth serving well, as you weren't committed to the product in the first place.

Workaccount2 3y ago
This is painfully true and so many excellent sources suffer because of it. By and large, people _will not_ pay if they don't have to and don't have to show their face. I could write about this ad nauseam, even the most ostensibly wealthy and honest communities, you still get something silly like 95% free 5% paying. It's not even necessarily malicious, it's just that people have this deeply embedded feeling that they are entitled to digital content, without ever really thinking about monetization.

BlandDuck 3y ago

> And I think it's safe to say that that would not be a good long-term strategy. Why is this not a good long-term strategy? What is a better strategy? It seems like the alternative may well have been to go bankrupt and go out of business, and that definitely isn't a great long-term strategy.

karaterobot 3y ago
If the strategy is just to recognize there are n subscribers who are dedicated readers of The Atlantic and are unlikely to drop their subscription if you increase the price 50%, then this is a bad long-term strategy because those people will eventually die or drop off due to attrition. The long term strategy should involve successfully bringing in new loyal subscribers. I'm sure they know this, and want it to happen, but the bit about charging more and making it harder to read for free would seem to make it harder to get new subscribers on board. So, there's a reading that says their short term profitability is hurting their long term profitability.

ChainOfFools 3y ago

> I see nothing here that argues against that hypothesis I think the hypothesis is even harder to doubt if looked at from another angle. Namely that Thompson had guessed, correctly, that the services the Atlantic provides have been mispriced for a long time.