3 ms·

Proof that paywalls are bullshit: "the company is expected to make more money from subscriptions than from advertising — the first time that’s happened." In ot

Proof that paywalls are bullshit: "the company is expected to make more money from subscriptions than from advertising — the first time that’s happened." In other words, they're charging so much, and the cost of digital distribution is so low, that they're making a ton of money from this paywall. They shouldn't be. Advertising should be the bigger source of revenue. It's like the government running at a massive surplus - time for a tax cut.

Derander 14y ago
I don't see why that conclusion follows. It seems that they've found that people are more willing to pay to read their content than advertisers are willing to pay to have ads alongside the content. There is nothing wrong with that model if it works.
corin_ 14y ago
Where does this opinion come from? You wouldn't get in a taxi and say "you're making more money from customers than advertisers, stop overcharging me", what makes you think that with digital publishing advertising ought to bring in the most revenue?
- chrisringrose 14y ago
  This is an article glorifying one exception in a sea of rules. This article gives the false impression that a paywall is a good idea for news sites, (and perhaps some will extend this to any kind of site, pointing to the success of the NYT). The NYT can rely on its name: we all know it's good, and its been around forever. Their target audience is the educated middle-upper-class. Many will pay, and they'll make money. But very few existing news organizations could successfully implement a paywall, and zero new organizations could. The only really successful business model on the internet has been "freemium", and free, but ad-based: Google, Facebook, etc. So this one exception occurs; great. But I'm saying lets not all get excited and start suggesting that next tech startup launch with a paywall. "But the NYT did it successfully" will be their last words.

Derander 14y ago

I don't see why that conclusion follows. It seems that they've found that people are more willing to pay to read their content than advertisers are willing to pay to have ads alongside the content. There is nothing wrong with that model if it works.

corin_ 14y ago

Where does this opinion come from? You wouldn't get in a taxi and say "you're making more money from customers than advertisers, stop overcharging me", what makes you think that with digital publishing advertising ought to bring in the most revenue?

chrisringrose 14y ago
This is an article glorifying one exception in a sea of rules. This article gives the false impression that a paywall is a good idea for news sites, (and perhaps some will extend this to any kind of site, pointing to the success of the NYT). The NYT can rely on its name: we all know it's good, and its been around forever. Their target audience is the educated middle-upper-class. Many will pay, and they'll make money. But very few existing news organizations could successfully implement a paywall, and zero new organizations could. The only really successful business model on the internet has been "freemium", and free, but ad-based: Google, Facebook, etc. So this one exception occurs; great. But I'm saying lets not all get excited and start suggesting that next tech startup launch with a paywall. "But the NYT did it successfully" will be their last words.