6 ms·

> But while some readers might not subscribe to outlets that give away some of their best journalism for free, it’s just as possible that readers will recognize

> But while some readers might not subscribe to outlets that give away some of their best journalism for free, it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run. In other words we have a wild guess this will be sustainable for news organizations. Stories like this are always popular on HN but I’m convinced get upvoted because people agree with the idea of more free stuff. I’m skeptical that this will improve the quality of reporting in an already under resourced journalistic environment. Maybe it’s a good idea, but it’s hardly obvious.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run These hybrid models don't work. Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia. Sell your damn product. Or sell your readers' eyeballs. I've hands down seen the best journalism from categories 1 and 2: folks focussed on the mission or confident enough in their quality to paywall everything. I've rarely seen it from 3. I've almost never seen it from those who try mixing. (The exception being those who sell traditional, i.e. non-targeted, ads.)
- radlad 2y ago
  There's the other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.) Though I'm not sure that's a great option in this climate either.
  - gowld 2y ago
    "Government funding" is generosity.
    - radlad 2y ago
      Yes and no - while it's taxpayer funded, you don't really have a choice as to whether your tax dollars fund it or not. I would argue that generosity requires intent.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.) About 30%, and indirectly at that: "eligible public radio stations may apply to receive annual grants directly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)" [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
  - mmooss 1y ago
    Just think, only a few years ago people talked about government funding as the solution to the financial crisis in journalism. Imagine where we would be today!
- inetknght 2y ago
  > Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia. So... quite profitable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFundraising_statis...
- derektank 2y ago
  Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work. You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem. I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work Sure. This problem is conserved across private enterprise. > providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem The New York Times runs a 12% operating margin [1]. Giving away half their content without sacrificing quality would require incurring the same 88¢ of costs for 50¢ of revenue; it just doesn't work. Sales and marketing is usually a single-digit percent of revenue for a reason [2]. The partial-reveal strategy particularly fails for news because I can now decide which articles I'll run through the Internet Archive. If you paywall everything, that's too tedious. [1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2024/11/Q324-Press-Release-Final-for-Distribution-OmzI43bT.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2024/11/Q324-Press-Release-... [2] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BFI_WP_2024-144-1.pdf https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BFI_WP_2...
    - gowld 2y ago
      NYT literally gives away some content for free and charges for the rest. NYT doesn't charge per article; they charge for tiers of access.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > NYT literally gives away some content for free and charges for the rest Yes. Not half.
karmelapple 2y ago
I have subscribed to them for other reasons recently, and this only solidifies my subscription to remain for another year. I sure don't work for anything close to Wired or their parent organization, but if you want good journalism, support it with your dollars. A year's subscription is less than a nice dinner out (or even a not-so-nice dinner out!).
duxup 2y ago
The users of the internet want things for free and then we complain when we don’t get it…. Or when someone else pays for it… :(
scarecrowbob 2y ago
A lot of my paid media consumption comes from podcasts which create enough free content to keep me engaged but which offer enough extra content that I want to pay for that content. At the scale of "small but functionally profitable podcasts" it seems to be working, so it's not like that model can't work out of hand. I am not sure it will work for print publishing, but it seems to be working for the patreon-funded folks.
JohnTHaller 2y ago
I subscribed to Wired a few weeks ago specifically because they were doing good reporting on things that other media was letting slid.
Drew_ 1y ago
It doesn't sound like much of a wild guess to me. Basically every single publication is letting customers sample their news before paying (free articles, free trials, etc). This is just more of the same.
mmooss 1y ago
> wild guess Why would it be a wild guess? This is an online news organization with long experience.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run These hybrid models don't work. Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia. Sell your damn product. Or sell your readers' eyeballs. I've hands down seen the best journalism from categories 1 and 2: folks focussed on the mission or confident enough in their quality to paywall everything. I've rarely seen it from 3. I've almost never seen it from those who try mixing. (The exception being those who sell traditional, i.e. non-targeted, ads.)

radlad 2y ago
There's the other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.) Though I'm not sure that's a great option in this climate either.
- gowld 2y ago
  "Government funding" is generosity.
  - radlad 2y ago
    Yes and no - while it's taxpayer funded, you don't really have a choice as to whether your tax dollars fund it or not. I would argue that generosity requires intent.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.) About 30%, and indirectly at that: "eligible public radio stations may apply to receive annual grants directly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)" [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
- mmooss 1y ago
  Just think, only a few years ago people talked about government funding as the solution to the financial crisis in journalism. Imagine where we would be today!
inetknght 2y ago
> Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia. So... quite profitable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFundraising_statis...
derektank 2y ago
Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work. You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem. I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work Sure. This problem is conserved across private enterprise. > providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem The New York Times runs a 12% operating margin [1]. Giving away half their content without sacrificing quality would require incurring the same 88¢ of costs for 50¢ of revenue; it just doesn't work. Sales and marketing is usually a single-digit percent of revenue for a reason [2]. The partial-reveal strategy particularly fails for news because I can now decide which articles I'll run through the Internet Archive. If you paywall everything, that's too tedious. [1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2024/11/Q324-Press-Release-Final-for-Distribution-OmzI43bT.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2024/11/Q324-Press-Release-... [2] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BFI_WP_2024-144-1.pdf https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BFI_WP_2...
  - gowld 2y ago
    NYT literally gives away some content for free and charges for the rest. NYT doesn't charge per article; they charge for tiers of access.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > NYT literally gives away some content for free and charges for the rest Yes. Not half.

karmelapple 2y ago

I have subscribed to them for other reasons recently, and this only solidifies my subscription to remain for another year. I sure don't work for anything close to Wired or their parent organization, but if you want good journalism, support it with your dollars. A year's subscription is less than a nice dinner out (or even a not-so-nice dinner out!).

duxup 2y ago

The users of the internet want things for free and then we complain when we don’t get it…. Or when someone else pays for it… :(

scarecrowbob 2y ago

A lot of my paid media consumption comes from podcasts which create enough free content to keep me engaged but which offer enough extra content that I want to pay for that content. At the scale of "small but functionally profitable podcasts" it seems to be working, so it's not like that model can't work out of hand. I am not sure it will work for print publishing, but it seems to be working for the patreon-funded folks.

JohnTHaller 2y ago

I subscribed to Wired a few weeks ago specifically because they were doing good reporting on things that other media was letting slid.

Drew_ 1y ago

It doesn't sound like much of a wild guess to me. Basically every single publication is letting customers sample their news before paying (free articles, free trials, etc). This is just more of the same.

mmooss 1y ago

> wild guess Why would it be a wild guess? This is an online news organization with long experience.