3 ms·

This really doesn't add up to me. I don't have the numbers, but I would assume that: 1. A very small percentage of website visitors will end up paying for a su

This really doesn't add up to me. I don't have the numbers, but I would assume that: 1. A very small percentage of website visitors will end up paying for a subscription. 2. They make way less than $5 per user per month from ads. The money they'd lose by providing an ad-free experience to paying customers should be a rounding error. Removing ads will also increase conversion, but who knows whether or not that will be enough to offset the revenue lost. I don't particularly care about their "business reality" - if you're an online news outlet you're not paying the costs of printing and distribution - your expenses are just journalist salaries and the marginal costs of keeping a website running. If you need to charge anything close to $5 per user per day to keep such an operation running, you should be out of business.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
2) is because of 1). They make way less than $5/user/month, but here's thousands of users to close that gap. So the paid users are a smaller slice than you'd guess at first blush. >if you need to charge anything close to $5 per user per day to keep such an operation running, you should be out of business. That's just American labor in a nutshell. if a jounralist is making full time national minimum wage ($7.25, 40 hours a week), that's very roughly $1000/month post tax. that very pooly paid jounalist needs 200 subcribers to sustain them. \ costs are going up, but readership and revenue is not. This doesn't end well for anyone. And yes, many businesses are dying right now. >I don't particularly care about their "business reality" if you don't care about them, I'm not sure why they'd care about your opinions on how they run.