3 ms·

You get what you pay for. When a site's only revenue source is ads paying a couple of bucks per thousand impressions, this is the inevitable result.

by mpclark 14y ago

eumenides1 14y ago
Actually I don't believe that's the case. I believe that the video game journalism industry selects those that break stories fastest and quality is an afterthought or by-product. The difference is very slight, but I honestly don't think if people were suddenly paying for it, the quality of the stories would suddenly rise. Nothing wrong with it, but as the tumblr account proves, bad actors can wreck havoc.
- mpclark 14y ago
  Well, if another revenue stream was, say, high-ticket industry research or conferences, then a site operating in that arena would suddenly find that it needs to be very credible and maintain a reputation for accuracy and professional reporting practices. They would need to swing from serving spotty teenagers to serving trade visitors with money to spend. I would expect this to immediately reflect in the quality of their news coverage.
danielweber 14y ago
Newspapers have a similar model. The subscription fee just helps establish their customers as bona fide.
- chernevik 14y ago
  Not always. Subscriptions for the Wall Street Journal are an foundation revenue source. I think this is also the case for the FT and the Economist. I don't think it coincidental that these are financial papers. Information is valuable and businesspeople will pay for it. That has implications for their reporting, too. Their stories are under pressure for accuracy, because the readers are paying for information and will go elsewhere if they don't get good stuff. I think ad-first news models are more prone to some bias to generate an audience. People generally don't like hearing things they disagree with, so anyone requiring a large audience finds themselves pressured to adopt particular attitudes to get and hold that audience. Why don't business people assert the similar biases? They do. But the ones paying up for information -- e.g. WSJ subscribers -- are almost by definition more interested in information than people who aren't. That particular crowd is also alert to the potential in contrarian opinion, they know people can get _paid_ for knowing something unexpected. So they've incentive to overcome their own cognitive dissonance. I read recently that the NY Times was moving to more dependence on subscription revenue. I think that would be great, the more a reader pays, the higher the demand for accuracy.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  In 2012, something remarkable happened at The Times. It was the year that circulation revenue — money made from people buying the paper or access to its digital edition — surpassed advertising revenue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/public-editor/a-milestone-behind-a-mountain-ahead.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/public-editor/a-milestone-...
ableal 14y ago
Do the ads in print or broadcast radio/TV pay much more than that? Seems that a Super Bowl spot goes for about 4 million USD, reaching 100+ million viewers [1] - that comes out as about 40 bucks per thousand impressions, but this "impression" is an interstitial one for 30 seconds. This is apparently the highest USA TV price ever. And, for print, most anything that is not paid research has a cover price mostly to pay for distribution (in particular, to get news stands paid for carrying it). [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/business/despite-4-million-price-tag-marketers-clamor-super-bowl-ads-1C7100946 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/despite-4-million-price-tag-...

You get what you pay for. When a site's only revenue source is ads paying a couple of bucks per thousand impressions, this is the inevitable result.

by mpclark 14y ago

You get what you pay for. When a site's only revenue source is ads paying a couple of bucks per thousand impressions, this is the inevitable result.

eumenides1 14y ago

Actually I don't believe that's the case. I believe that the video game journalism industry selects those that break stories fastest and quality is an afterthought or by-product. The difference is very slight, but I honestly don't think if people were suddenly paying for it, the quality of the stories would suddenly rise. Nothing wrong with it, but as the tumblr account proves, bad actors can wreck havoc.

mpclark 14y ago
Well, if another revenue stream was, say, high-ticket industry research or conferences, then a site operating in that arena would suddenly find that it needs to be very credible and maintain a reputation for accuracy and professional reporting practices. They would need to swing from serving spotty teenagers to serving trade visitors with money to spend. I would expect this to immediately reflect in the quality of their news coverage.

danielweber 14y ago

Newspapers have a similar model. The subscription fee just helps establish their customers as bona fide.

chernevik 14y ago
Not always. Subscriptions for the Wall Street Journal are an foundation revenue source. I think this is also the case for the FT and the Economist. I don't think it coincidental that these are financial papers. Information is valuable and businesspeople will pay for it. That has implications for their reporting, too. Their stories are under pressure for accuracy, because the readers are paying for information and will go elsewhere if they don't get good stuff. I think ad-first news models are more prone to some bias to generate an audience. People generally don't like hearing things they disagree with, so anyone requiring a large audience finds themselves pressured to adopt particular attitudes to get and hold that audience. Why don't business people assert the similar biases? They do. But the ones paying up for information -- e.g. WSJ subscribers -- are almost by definition more interested in information than people who aren't. That particular crowd is also alert to the potential in contrarian opinion, they know people can get _paid_ for knowing something unexpected. So they've incentive to overcome their own cognitive dissonance. I read recently that the NY Times was moving to more dependence on subscription revenue. I think that would be great, the more a reader pays, the higher the demand for accuracy.
kmfrk 14y ago
In 2012, something remarkable happened at The Times. It was the year that circulation revenue — money made from people buying the paper or access to its digital edition — surpassed advertising revenue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/public-editor/a-milestone-behind-a-mountain-ahead.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/public-editor/a-milestone-...

ableal 14y ago

Do the ads in print or broadcast radio/TV pay much more than that? Seems that a Super Bowl spot goes for about 4 million USD, reaching 100+ million viewers [1] - that comes out as about 40 bucks per thousand impressions, but this "impression" is an interstitial one for 30 seconds. This is apparently the highest USA TV price ever. And, for print, most anything that is not paid research has a cover price mostly to pay for distribution (in particular, to get news stands paid for carrying it). [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/business/despite-4-million-price-tag-marketers-clamor-super-bowl-ads-1C7100946 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/despite-4-million-price-tag-...