4 ms·
I know, right?. The audacity of publishers expecting to be paid for work they do.
by bitpush 1y ago
I know, right?. The audacity of publishers expecting to be paid for work they do.
- righthand 1y agoThey already do get paid, that’s why they sell all their readers out to advertising. They need MORE money?
- kjkjadksj 1y agoYeah they do. The readership is the product to be marketed towards. The clients are the advertisers. That is why they don’t go subscription free with a higher ad rate: their real clients would leave.
- bitpush 1y ago"Apple makes money from iPhones and they are charging for Airpods and Macbooks as well. They need MORE money?" What a weird take.
- vkou 1y agoThe existence of the Macbook does not really degrade the UX of an iPhone. Either way, if there's too many ads in a paid publication, don't subscribe to it.
- _Algernon_ 1y agoThe mixed funding model of customers paying directly + funding with advertisement has been a thing for decades. Chomsky commented on it in Manufacturing Consent published in 1988 and iirc it had already been a thing then for decades at that point. In short publications that supplemented with advertising out-competed the alternatives that took a larger fee. Blame price sensitive customers' willingness to pay, not the publications.
- immibis 1y agoIt was understandable back when they, like, delivered news and stuff. But they don't deliver news now, just advertising. Why pay for extra advertising?
- bigyabai 1y agoThere is fair and documented product placement, and then there is native advertisement. This is the latter, undoubtedly. As someone that doesn't pay a dime for news, this sort of article leaves me pretty content with my investment.