I replaced my fairly curated (/r/neutralpolitics, /r/neutralnews etc) Reddit morning news with NYT about a month ago. It's completely changed my morning routine. I feel much more "holistically" informed, and I feel calmer since the news are significantly more nuanced than what makes it to the top of organic news sites.
The "morning briefing", which gives me a brief summary of key news items to go with my morning coffee, alone would have been worth the $3.75 a week.
Had none of the issues OP notes on getting an annual subscription - and at the NYT price point, I'm ashamed it took me this long to pay for good journalism.
Independent of what rag you support, if you don't currently pay for journalistic work, please consider doing so. The dollar figures are minimal and constitute a tremendous boost for the Fourth Estate.
You are implying that it's worth supporting the Fourth Estate. Regardless of what side of the isle you are on, last year's elections have shown the unopposed bias present in the US and UK systems.
I have and will continue consuming my news for free. If an institution like the NYT dies because people don't support it financially then I'm ok with that. Someone else will take their place with a model that works.
I don't look for neutrality, I think it's largely illusory. Everyone has a self-interest. I don't expect them to deny that, I expect them to give me proof of what they say. So I prefer to look at a diverse set of media, avoiding filter bubbles, compare the stories everyone covers, and see what core set of facts (if any) these sources agree on. Then I look at the authors and the sourcing. Where did they get their facts? Can any of these facts be corroborated elsewhere? All anonymous sources are treated as if the author themselves said it and evaluated accordingly. Even the 'stopped clock' outlets might be right twice a day. It's amazing which parts of stories get covered by some outlets and not others.
> You have to sit through an online chat session which takes longer than it should. Apparently you’re not allowed to cancel your subscription until you answer the question, how is your day going?
This right here is why PayPal won online payments. They're extremely consumer friendly. One button cancellation, no fucking around. I don't even bother going to sites any more, I just open PayPal and hit cancel.
I basically won't work with anything that's not PayPal or Bitcoin these days due to hassles like this.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any experience getting their credit card company to cancel all future payments to a company? Is this easy to do?
You may find that this cuts out a large number of companies.
Bitcoin is still at the point where having it in your checkout process will confuse most people for most consumer sites, which means decreased conversion, and lack of take-up.
PayPal require large amounts of capital to be held as collateral, which has a significant impact on the cash flow of a business, and can make it essentially a non-starter to work with them.
By all means limit to those if you value the UX highly enough, and I agree that they have a great UX in some ways for consumers. But do realise that it cuts out entire categories of companies.
If you go through a newspaper's companion app on iOS, you can subscribe using Apple's mechanism. It's usually a few dollars more each month, but you can turn it off through iTunes without any phone calls.
Required a phone call with a little repetition of my request to 2 people, as well as explanation of the reason for canceling... but not that hard. (Chase Bank)
It is bizarre that we don't have any consumer protection law around requiring an option for online cancellation for subscriptions that offer online purchases.
Ted and jakewins both advocate subscribing to support newspapers and journalism.
I absolutely agree that quality journalism is essential and should be paid for. But aim higher: In addition to subscribing, try to find a funding method that actually will work in the long run. Specifications, in no order:
A) Journalists have sufficient funds to do quality work, earn a decent living, and attract talented, dedicated people to the profession.
B) Journalists can speak truth to power and to an angry Internet mob. They are free from influence by their funders, to a great degree.
C) The quality work is as widely distributed as possible. This is essential: If only subscribers can read it, then only tiny portion of the online world can benefit and it's not part of the public conversation. Instead of the Internet dream (very achievable) of distributing valuable content effortlessly, we're back to the old days of it being available only to a few subscribers and everyone else subsists on 'fake news'.
It's a question that's been asked many times, but so far nobody has solved it (and specification C is usually ignored).
I believe this is essentially what The Guardian is set up to do, being owned by the Scott Trust [1][2] rather than normal shareholders. Assuming you agree with their politics, it is possible to support them by becoming a member [3] with a monthly subscription of GBP 5.00
> The Scott Trust was originally created in 1936 to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference.
Large newspapers still do a lot of valuable journalism that no-one else is doing. For example, the recent controversy over General Flynn was driven heavily by dogged Washington Post reporting, backed up by details fleshed out by the New York Times. You can't really do this kind of journalism without it being your full time job, and few organisations can afford to pay the number of full time journalists needed.
I'm all for supporting alternative means of journalism, but there will be a huge, huge vacuum if these large newspapers fail.
Who has the connections, the bureaus, the manpower, and the money to provide quality journalism across a wide array of fields and cover it but depth besides mega newspapers?
I'm all for supporting local news but if I want quality journalism on a nationwide / global topic I'm not heading to my local paper.
I loved the content in the Journal but unfortunately I was put off by their sneaky behaviour when they charged my card for the next month's subscription after the free month. Granted I should've set an alert but, they could've at least informed me once before it expired.
To then cancel it, I had to make a call and stay on it for half hour. I still can't figure out who's coming with these hackneyed marketing "solutions" at media houses.
Unfortunately this is an extremely common practice. Usually what I do to avoid such things is to immediately cancel once they give me the free one as with most services you'll get to keep your subscription to the end of the month anyways.
Best line: "First, I’ll note that I have a pretty much unlimited media budget. If I can afford to spend a hundred dollars per month poisoning myself with tequila, I can spend that much on information."
Yes. Stated humorously, but presumably meant seriously.
I've concluded the same about informational media such as books, magazines, music. If I'm paying attention to it and getting value, it's generally worth paying for and not agonizing about the price.
With all the talk of these businesses struggling, and their supposed focus on moving into the future, I would be a pretty upset shareholder to find out that they have the user experience this...wrong?!
The user experience is the ad sales department and they're usually very nice folks. The experience in the linked article is the experience of being the product sold. Its like the difference between working in marketing at KFC which is probably entertaining, vs being a factory farmed bird which probably isn't as much fun.
You assume this isn't all on purpose as part of their "retention strategy." Pretty sure this is now taught in MBA farms to the latest batch of grads as everyone does it...
Nobody measures the lost repeat business due to these retention strategies because most people don't look beyond the current fiscal year.
The first thing I do whenever I subscribe to a service these days is research how difficult it is to unsubscribe from it. I was tempted to get Sunday delivery for some of those newspapers in the article but realized that it would be tough to get out of them.
I think this type of interaction might make sense for a different type of customer. I imagine people who are getting the physical version of a newspaper might be older or less tech-savvy so the "bad old way" of waiting in a call center queue on hold might be what they are expecting instead of a fancy complicated web interface.
Okay, this is a good look into the payment systems of all three, but I feel like judging them solely by that and not by the content of the actual paper is probably not the right metric to use here.
Yet, its strangely fair, in that regardless of the content of the Times, billing in that industry is so bad, and billing at the Times is so unusually awful within industry standards, that he couldn't give them money to subscribe.
By analogy I trade money for code, and I won't sell code to you (nothing personal, just can't), so you can wonder how good my code is, but it doesn't really matter because I won't sell you my code regardless of its quality level.
How is the US coverage from the FT? The best parts about the WSJ (and NYT) is the timely breaking news, the live-video and live-audio feeds of various proceedings (E.g. both had a live broadcast of the cabinet confirmations, along with real-time input from on-hand journalists, giving generally good insight).
I actually vastly prefer the FT website to NYT/WP/WSJ, but would very much appreciate the prompt US-centric news feeds. I know it's Euro-centric and Britain-based, so I wanted to ask.
I subscribe to the Financial Times weekly and find it highly valuable. It's enough to keep me up to date, and covers a broad area of topics and regions.
This guy's approach reminds me of why I ended up with Dish instead of DirecTV. Dish was the one that lets me DOWNGRADE my service without forcing me to pick up the phone. Cancel HBO? Just click!
odd... we had directv, and the last year, we'd downgraded to the most basic service. we'd 'upgrade' for 3 hours to watch a sports game 2x per month - were prorated for those days - and would 'downgrade' right after the game. So... basic service for 28 days, prorated 'higher package' price for 3 days. worked fine all done from their website. Usually needed to do it at least 5 minutes before the game.
He's lucky he didn't try to subscribe to a local Hearst paper.
I subscribed because I like the paper and the newsstand in my building closed. But the process is bizarre -- They only let you subscribe in weird increments of weeks vs. months. Then you get what they call "bonus" weeks, but the outcome is that the billing system ends up double-billing you for up to one week, and you can't predict when the bills will come.
[+] [-] jakewins|9 years ago|reply
The "morning briefing", which gives me a brief summary of key news items to go with my morning coffee, alone would have been worth the $3.75 a week.
Had none of the issues OP notes on getting an annual subscription - and at the NYT price point, I'm ashamed it took me this long to pay for good journalism.
Independent of what rag you support, if you don't currently pay for journalistic work, please consider doing so. The dollar figures are minimal and constitute a tremendous boost for the Fourth Estate.
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8U939.h...
[+] [-] lobotryas|9 years ago|reply
I have and will continue consuming my news for free. If an institution like the NYT dies because people don't support it financially then I'm ok with that. Someone else will take their place with a model that works.
[+] [-] problems|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Natsu|9 years ago|reply
The end result is not too different from this:
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-s...
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BlackjackCF|9 years ago|reply
Also those mini crosswords in the NYT app are pretty fun.
[+] [-] sqldba|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] problems|9 years ago|reply
This right here is why PayPal won online payments. They're extremely consumer friendly. One button cancellation, no fucking around. I don't even bother going to sites any more, I just open PayPal and hit cancel.
I basically won't work with anything that's not PayPal or Bitcoin these days due to hassles like this.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any experience getting their credit card company to cancel all future payments to a company? Is this easy to do?
[+] [-] tghw|9 years ago|reply
https://www.getfinal.com/
(I have a card, but am not otherwise affiliated with them.)
[+] [-] danpalmer|9 years ago|reply
Bitcoin is still at the point where having it in your checkout process will confuse most people for most consumer sites, which means decreased conversion, and lack of take-up.
PayPal require large amounts of capital to be held as collateral, which has a significant impact on the cash flow of a business, and can make it essentially a non-starter to work with them.
By all means limit to those if you value the UX highly enough, and I agree that they have a great UX in some ways for consumers. But do realise that it cuts out entire categories of companies.
[+] [-] ascagnel_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PKop|9 years ago|reply
Certainly not as simple as on online form though.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] the_gastropod|9 years ago|reply
edit: spelling ;-)
[+] [-] crooked-v|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ksherlock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|9 years ago|reply
I absolutely agree that quality journalism is essential and should be paid for. But aim higher: In addition to subscribing, try to find a funding method that actually will work in the long run. Specifications, in no order:
A) Journalists have sufficient funds to do quality work, earn a decent living, and attract talented, dedicated people to the profession.
B) Journalists can speak truth to power and to an angry Internet mob. They are free from influence by their funders, to a great degree.
C) The quality work is as widely distributed as possible. This is essential: If only subscribers can read it, then only tiny portion of the online world can benefit and it's not part of the public conversation. Instead of the Internet dream (very achievable) of distributing valuable content effortlessly, we're back to the old days of it being available only to a few subscribers and everyone else subsists on 'fake news'.
It's a question that's been asked many times, but so far nobody has solved it (and specification C is usually ignored).
[+] [-] grkvlt|9 years ago|reply
> The Scott Trust was originally created in 1936 to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust
2. https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/oct/24/scott-tru...
3. https://membership.theguardian.com/uk/supporter
[+] [-] gukov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untog|9 years ago|reply
I'm all for supporting alternative means of journalism, but there will be a huge, huge vacuum if these large newspapers fail.
[+] [-] 40acres|9 years ago|reply
I'm all for supporting local news but if I want quality journalism on a nationwide / global topic I'm not heading to my local paper.
[+] [-] hbosch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brickmort|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roystonvassey|9 years ago|reply
To then cancel it, I had to make a call and stay on it for half hour. I still can't figure out who's coming with these hackneyed marketing "solutions" at media houses.
[+] [-] problems|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gigatexal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mturmon|9 years ago|reply
I've concluded the same about informational media such as books, magazines, music. If I'm paying attention to it and getting value, it's generally worth paying for and not agonizing about the price.
[+] [-] pdog|9 years ago|reply
Newspapers all have digital departments, yet you can only cancel your subscription by calling a phone number...
[+] [-] chinathrow|9 years ago|reply
From a european view, I think this should be regulated: enable the same channel used for easy subscription also for easy cancellation.
[+] [-] verelo|9 years ago|reply
Although honestly, not shocked by anything here.
[+] [-] VLM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|9 years ago|reply
Nobody measures the lost repeat business due to these retention strategies because most people don't look beyond the current fiscal year.
[+] [-] Yhippa|9 years ago|reply
I think this type of interaction might make sense for a different type of customer. I imagine people who are getting the physical version of a newspaper might be older or less tech-savvy so the "bad old way" of waiting in a call center queue on hold might be what they are expecting instead of a fancy complicated web interface.
[+] [-] pettazz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VLM|9 years ago|reply
By analogy I trade money for code, and I won't sell code to you (nothing personal, just can't), so you can wonder how good my code is, but it doesn't really matter because I won't sell you my code regardless of its quality level.
[+] [-] davidw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hbosch|9 years ago|reply
I actually vastly prefer the FT website to NYT/WP/WSJ, but would very much appreciate the prompt US-centric news feeds. I know it's Euro-centric and Britain-based, so I wanted to ask.
[+] [-] graeme|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyhnj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pythonaut_16|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smhenderson|9 years ago|reply
That and all the great updates on OpenBSD development!
[+] [-] baccredited|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgkimsal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yniels|9 years ago|reply
But already have there product wide available in Netherlands and Germany
[+] [-] a3n|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leotravis10|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
I subscribed because I like the paper and the newsstand in my building closed. But the process is bizarre -- They only let you subscribe in weird increments of weeks vs. months. Then you get what they call "bonus" weeks, but the outcome is that the billing system ends up double-billing you for up to one week, and you can't predict when the bills will come.
[+] [-] DrScump|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rc_bhg|9 years ago|reply