Hacker News Reader

Comment by bogwog | Hacker News Reader

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous.

Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created.

A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown because they couldn't figure out a sustainable way to be profitable (assuming for sake of argument that most people don't subscribe due to the ads, which idk if that would really happen).

> This feels like a situation where an organization tries doing something laudable, but still gets criticized for it.

The OP is a customer of the Verge who is rejecting their offer for a new subscription service they don't like. That's called "voting with your wallet", and its the free market working as intended.

View on HN

> Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier?

You presumably want access to the Verge's content. This is unsustainable without some revenue. You're compromising to continue to get what you want, not to make some MBA's life easier.

I don't want any content enough to tolerate ads.

Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.

We have the full right to assert any moral stance. Whether others find it "condescending" is really not my problem.

The reality is that the internet is not a good publication venue. There are lots of eyeballs and distribution is cheap, but getting people to pay is hard. That doesn't mean serving up advertisement is a moral response. Advertisement is met with ad-blockers and will continue to be. When that is too painful, people do skip the content.

Honestly, most people don’t use an ad blocker. We’re all in a tech bubble here. Most people just see ads and that’s it. Some complain, most don’t.

>We have the full right to assert any moral stance.

people are free to ignore it as well.

Has his kind of blowhardy stance ever convinced anyone?

>When that is too painful, people do skip the content.

not enough that non-mainstream news sites haven't stopped serving ads. That's the point. You can only control you, not someone clicking a result off google or reddit, nor a million dollar website that has paid employees.

So the problem is not just black and white - consume ads or dont. It is when my data is being sold without my consent or visibility, when an accidental visiting a page installs tracking cookies and shows annoying opt-out screens, when ad/malware gets installed in every piece of hardware I own (eg "Smart TVs") that is the problem. No business "needs" to exist - that too vampirically. Incentivize the customer to opt-in with full visibility and let them pick. Dollar costs are visible - why are ads sneakier?

>Dollar costs are visible - why are ads sneakier?

because of lack of regulations? or corrections to regulation. there's GDPR but of course there will be loopholes to make the browsing annoying. That's the cat and mouse of law.

I don’t see how sharing one’s rationale for not being a customer (as in the article) is equivalent to asserting a moral stance, nor do I see any condescension.

Is it that you are generally opposed to critical response? And if so, do you see the irony in you critically responding to another critical response?

You are ignoring the reality that ethical producers must grapple with: it's impossible to compete ethically when your competitors don't have that limit.

Note that this also goes for genuinely free content - if tons of ad-supported businesses just dominate the search results because they can afford to spend time on SEO then free alternatives (individuals sharing their passions, non-profit organizations, etc.) will be discouraged.

The reality is also that we simply have much more content than needed. Having every single of currently ad supported businesses cease to exist would not be a real problem.

> Having every single of currently ad supported businesses cease to exist would not be a real problem.

Uhh, what about news organizations? That would be a problem.

It wouldn't be a problem at all, no.

I don't. I can't remember anything from there which I've found noteworthy. And I have been pushed there from here, because someone found it postworthy, and I clicked because of boredom. Skimmed. Maybe scrolled. Still bored. Learned nothing. Closed tab. YAWN. I won't miss it.

I don't think you've said anything that disagrees with GP. Of course you can vote with your wallet. And of course a company can choose to seek profit from ads.

The tension between those two forces will find a natural result. Maybe the company goes out of business and whatever the company did is no longer available to anyone. Maybe they lose half their customers but still make more money and buy themselves yachts, and their remaining customers are satisfied.

> its the free market working as intended.

As is the verge’s pricing and ad strategy, you think they didn’t expect some churn by making a pricing change? The author is free to shout it from their soapbox but chances are the verge already expected some of this sentiment and is totally ok with a “ok losing these customers” approach

I worked at The Times in London when we did this - we lost ~98.7% of our free audience, retained a smaller ad business, turned a £20mn / year loss into a £20mn / year profit over a few years.

That folks think it’s an MBA that benefits from building a sustainable media business and not the people who work there, who get paychecks and better resourcing, is one of the great misunderstandings of the journalism business and the reason why I pipe up in threads like these.

No doubt the people who work for the mob benefit from murder, drug-running, and extortion, but it doesn't follow that having them around is worthwhile.

Ads are a scourge.

Hm. I disagree. Though I'm too lazy to check up on who's behind the Verge, atm or even initially.

Because of things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denver_Post#Newsroom_cuts_...

Which is only one of many. Just came to my mind because once Pulitzer Price winning, while now nothing special.

https://www.westword.com/ is more interesting, at least for local stuff, if one considers 4 to 5hrs drive in good weather, or a short hop through the air 'local' :)

Similar stuff with https://www.aspentimes.com/ which is now more or less generic drivel,

in the same template as much other stuff around there. (See News Neighbors down there, click and compare)

Some of those migrated to https://www.aspendailynews.com/ which isn't better that much, but still a little bit.

Maybe that's just because of the location, and the economic pressures of a former mininig village,

which changed into a fully gentrified resort village, milking masses of tourists for the 'unique experience'.

Which it still has, far away from the tourist traps, if one can afford it :)

There isn't that much to report, which would be public, or the locals being interested in.

There aren't that many anyways.

Those organizations that didn't do what it took to be in business, are already out of business. You are looking at the survivors.

The OP should indeed vote with their wallet. They will have to find some other source of news/entertainment. (I really wish that those two weren't the same thing, but that's another compromise that we haven't figured out how to avoid while still getting paid.) Maybe they'll get a deal elsewhere that is more to their liking.

If they can't survive without reduced ads on subscriptions, or the price of subscriptions without ads becomes unviable for users, then they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I honestly wouldn't mind a subscription that reduces ads to the point of being _non-obnoxious_, but I'm in an odd position because I pay for YouTube Premium, which doesn't have ads, and costs a lot more money to distribute (video, text, and images vs text & images), but I grew up in the newspaper age which were chock full of ads free or subscription.

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not).

Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want.

I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass.

The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes. If we do, then we're no better than those who say "real communism has never been tried".

The fake news situation, like all (well, most at least) failures of the free market are solvable with regulations. I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. We banned selling cigarettes to minors, we banned drugs, we (theoretically) banned monopolies, and we should be able to ban fake news.

But it is currently a political weapon being wielded by a political party. I don't expect that problem will be solved any time soon, but it's not fair to blame that on capitalism. Politicians ruin everything no matter what economic system they're in.

> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want.

But I don't want ad supported journalism!

> I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies.

It's actually a very common opinion, because it always gets weaponized.

It's not a new phenomenon. It's the reason for the whole idea of freedom of speech.

It's not just R doing this (though they are... prolific users of it). Remember covid? Lab leak was politically incorrect as a lie, and banned, but has since been downgraded to "maybe".

> But I don't want ad supported journalism!

Me neither. But the choice may be between ad supported or none at all. But I hope we can find a viable third way.

> I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies.

I would rather not let the goivernment decide what is the truth. A free and independent press as well as free speech in general is a very important check on government corruption that we should not get rid of even if it means tolerating some comparatively minor issues.

"Fake news" is much better solved by teaching people to think critically and ensuring that they have the ability and will to deal with being subjected to deliberately wrong information no matter who it comes from. Unfortunately most school systems do the opposite of that, teaching instead to blindly follow authority and to accept whatever information is provided as fact. Same with current progressive culture in general, if you even dare question any of its dogma you are shunned. No individual though allowed.

>I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies.

It's called "bait" and not "yellow journalism" for a reason. misleading is not the same as misinformation. It's a petty subsect of journalism that really isn't serious enough for any formal regulation to be made on.

Infowars is an interesting example it’s (was) basically a health supplement company masquerading as a media company. Most of its ad load was selling supplements that it produced.

All shadiness aside it’s an interesting model. Cuts a lot of the middlemen out.

"I wish I could buy an article" is close to "I'd buy that on a t-shirt" on the sincere-not serious spectrum.

Most people won't do it when it's offered. The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it.

> Most people won't do it when it's offered.

I hope this has actually been tested, and that this is not a (quite reasonable) assumption. (but per below, it's not easy to test)

But when you say "most won't do it when it's offered", surely it has to be a higher percentage than people who choose to sign up for a subscription when offered? (though yes, a subscription will bring more revenue)

I guess this mostly annoys me because I've personally never been offered. And I would.

> The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it.

Not only that, but also micro transactions are not very profitable, after CC fees. I still believe that a working standard micro transactions system would be great. It has a bootstrapping problem, though.

There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines, that I DO NOT WANT to pay even 1$/€ for every single one. Maybe 1 to 10ct, via legal microtransactions, not some cryptocurrencyshit.

If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might, maybe they aren't that important, and never were to begin with? Let them all burn in a bonfire of their very own.

> There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines

Sure. But there are many good ones too. Not just random ones, but take FT or Economist. Several times a month I see a headline I'm interested in, and I do trust them to not bait-and-switch the article. Maybe I'd read it and conclude it was not worth it, but that's not the same thing.

But they both want to sign me up for a subscription. No. I'll pay $1 to read this article if and only if this is the end of the interaction.

So I end up paying them nothing, and not reading the article. (or someone with a subscription copy-pastes the content for me)

> If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might

Maybe they're stupid. Maybe "I'm not the typical user". Maybe it's just not feasible for FT/Economist alone to implement what I'm asking for, because the micro payment infrastructure doesn't exist.

There is SEPA with instant payment in the European Union, which has to be available at no additional cost. Which in practice already works for micropayments, as can be seen by various entities booking 1ct to verify the validity of the account holder/data.

Amazon does this, Aliexpress does it, many others already do this. Why can't the effing press/media do it?

Similar applies to US-American ACH.

But no, those r-tards always want to sell their bundles and abonnements.

>Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media

yes. that's the cost of freedom. Stupidity is freedom as well.

>Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy?

I want good creators compensated for good stories. MBAs will get paid no matter what. that's sort of what they minmax for. And they don't care what industry they suck off of.

>I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended

$1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. the microtransaction approach can't work because you really can't charge much more than a dollar for any digital transaction to begin with. You can always go for the "tokens" approach, but that's a much older and assumedly unpopular model.

>The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes.

At the same time, denying the free market because it doesn't go the way we want just makes us sound hypocritcal. Fortunately, most results of this model do not give us scams and propoganda. There's enough to discuss without going into the fringes.

>> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy?

> I want good creators compensated for good stories.

I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.

> I want good creators compensated for good stories.

So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.

> $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population.

Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, subjectively it'll feel that way to most people. But there are many out there who have a subscription for $5 a month where they consume none of the content.

But I just pulled the price $1 out of my ass. $0.20, then? The Economist seems to cost $79 per year. If you charge $0.20 per article that's order of one article per day. And most people would not even be interested in one of their articles per week.

Then tomorrow they can spend $0.20 at FT for another article, and so on. And at the end of the year, $79 has been sent to actual journalism, and the customer has received value.

Now this potential customer just consumes nothing. Or worse: Twitter.

> Stupidity is freedom as well.

Differential pricing too. It annoys me that I'm not charged $1 per Economist article, since I am willing to pay.

>I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.

Okay, I can still answer a question, especially if the framing is bad.

>So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.

We don't get to choose how we pay for stuff. That's part of the deal. Maybe I want a slice of bread but I often need to buy a loaf. Maybe I want a bottle of ketchup but Costco only sells 2 giant vats.

Again, blame Mastercard/Visa for your model not being popular. I mentioned as such in the previous response. You may have chosen a dollar arbitrarily, but you were kind of correct about that cost if we're talking per article purchases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com