I feel like I've had a chance to be on both sides of this issue. I hate visiting a site and having the page jump around a bunch while all the ads load. And then dodge the ads. I also pay a lot for advertising. I get that it sucks for every body. I have sympathy for NYT. This stuff doesn't get written for free. I don't have any ideas to contribute yet but they aren't wrong to need to put their foot down and readers aren't wrong to want an alternative. It's a weird time for the net.
So, I subscribe to The Economist and I have a lifetime subscription to Nautilus. I happily pay for things that are good enough and relevant to my interests.
The NYT may want to consider what they could do to convince people like me that they're worth paying for.
I'm in the same-ish boat with regards to paid subscriptions. I pay for what is worth it to me. I think it's an older people trend yet. I tend to put things in the perspective of what a movie costs to watch in theaters. If the entertainment value surpasses or at least equals that to me, I go for it. Netflix and Hulu are a friggin bargain. Other services fall on that spectrum to me. It's all about the value.
His "AdBlock is evil" rhetoric isn't going to sell a single Times subscription. I'm a NYT subscriber and their jumpy, slow-loading pages irritate the hell out of me. Fix your product, Mr. Thompson, not your customers.
Good luck with that.
I came here to say those words exactly.
Adblock users consider New York Times ban.
I wonder what the numbers look like at Forbes with regard to blocking ad blockers. How far has their readership dropped? Is it negligible?