3 ms·

Spotify isn't profitable. I don't know any subscription-based pure-play internet media company that's profitable. (Maybe Netflix? But we'll have to see how p

Spotify isn't profitable. I don't know any subscription-based pure-play internet media company that's profitable. (Maybe Netflix? But we'll have to see how profitable they are now that other subscription services have recently launched.) The NYTimes is probably the highest-end as far as content quality is concerned, but if you're not going to pay for that, why would you pay for anything else? Absolutely no one is paying for content online. People pay for art. They don't pay for commodity, and everything online is information commodity. There's just too much low-value competing sources that are "good enough" for consumer interests. Given that, I think ad-blocking has largely been overstated as a concern for media sites. Among my own friends, I only know one person that uses ad-blockers. Ads aren't a problem that people worry about. In fact, for a good media property, ads are a draw. People buy fashion magazines and Sunday newspapers for the ads, for example.

MaysonL 11y ago
Absolutely no one is paying for content online. Techpinions, the Information, and Ben Thompson would all disagree.
- mozumder 11y ago
  Those are industry sites, for professionals to use for their jobs. They're equivalent to academic journals. Bankers can pay Bloomberg $24,000/year for their terminal.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    OK, how about Lynda.com? In other words, people who think the information will pay for itself, or is valuable in some other way, are willing to pay for it. That's a far cry from absolutely nobody.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
trimbo 11y ago
> Absolutely no one is paying for content online "The Financial Times saw a sharp increase in profits in 2014, driven by growth in subscription and digital revenues and a record high circulation. The FT’s total circulation grew 10% year-on-year to nearly 720,000 across print and online. FT.com subscriptions grew 21% to almost 504,000, with digital now representing 70% of the FT’s total paying audience." http://aboutus.ft.com/2015/02/27/financial-times-2014-results/ http://aboutus.ft.com/2015/02/27/financial-times-2014-result...
- mozumder 11y ago
  right. And about 320,000 people pay $24,000/year for a Bloomberg terminal. I still see them (FT, WSJ, BB, etc..) as a niche trade-specific media properties, with no relevance to people outside of the industry. Or to put it another way, you're saying "Sure, subscriptions on the internet can work.. all you need is everyone to be a banker!"

MaysonL 11y ago

Absolutely no one is paying for content online. Techpinions, the Information, and Ben Thompson would all disagree.

mozumder 11y ago
Those are industry sites, for professionals to use for their jobs. They're equivalent to academic journals. Bankers can pay Bloomberg $24,000/year for their terminal.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  OK, how about Lynda.com? In other words, people who think the information will pay for itself, or is valuable in some other way, are willing to pay for it. That's a far cry from absolutely nobody.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

trimbo 11y ago

> Absolutely no one is paying for content online "The Financial Times saw a sharp increase in profits in 2014, driven by growth in subscription and digital revenues and a record high circulation. The FT’s total circulation grew 10% year-on-year to nearly 720,000 across print and online. FT.com subscriptions grew 21% to almost 504,000, with digital now representing 70% of the FT’s total paying audience." http://aboutus.ft.com/2015/02/27/financial-times-2014-results/ http://aboutus.ft.com/2015/02/27/financial-times-2014-result...

mozumder 11y ago
right. And about 320,000 people pay $24,000/year for a Bloomberg terminal. I still see them (FT, WSJ, BB, etc..) as a niche trade-specific media properties, with no relevance to people outside of the industry. Or to put it another way, you're saying "Sure, subscriptions on the internet can work.. all you need is everyone to be a banker!"