The sum of annual subscriptions across all newspapers I'm interested in is exorbitant.
What if I could pay on a per-article basis? I wouldn't have a problem paying 50¢ or $1.00 for an article I was interested in. It's not practical for each publisher to set up micro-payments. But, if there were an intermediate agent that accepted and managed payments for individual random articles, the money could be aggregated and remitted in a lump sum to the publishers. Sort of like an old-fashioned news stand.
What the newspaper business needs is a middleman who will collect micro-payments from me and millions of others, aggregate the money, charge my credit card once a month, and pay each publication weekly or monthly for the collective readers who have selected articles.
The middleman could accept PayPal payments, or I could open an account with my credit card, and pay once a month for all the individual articles I have read.
There is a Website called Blendle that proposes to do this. However, only a subset of articles are available. Publishers are reserving the prime content for full subscribers, and leaving Blendle with the crumbs. That's not going to work.
In reality, the reason why these have failed in the past is human psychology. Think about this with something other than news -- we all have $800 smartphones, but stare at the app store thinking, "hmm...do I really want to spend 99 CENTS?"
When you subscribe to a publication, you have to make decision once. You think about the amount of money against all future potential articles you can read, and decide from there. When you're paying for EACH article, all of a sudden you have to make that decision with every click. Is this article REALLY worth 50 cents?
Not to mention, this incentivizes the totally wrong things. People say they hate clickbait, but the aggregators and social networks that now act as gatekeepers force that kind of behavior -- publishers of course only get paid when you click through to their article. And in this case, it's even more profound -- we're no longer talking about a few cents from display ads, but 50 cents to $1.
It seems like this type of approach would incentivise clickbaity articles even more than the current financing structure does. Subscribing to a newspaper is a long-term arrangement, requiring the publisher to establish and maintain the reader's trust. Articles, on the other hand, are one-time interactions. Once you start seeing enough clickbait from a given source you can avoid the source in the future, but it would be significantly harder for publishers to leverage positive trust and reputation in such a setting.
Better would be to pay 10-20$ for an aggregated service, wherein you'll get all articles of to top 100 newspapers. Payment to newspaper will be done based on no. of articles read.
To reduce it being a pure click-bait pool, we can also add some sort of tipping model, wherein part of my money is distributed according to like/rating I have given. So a 5* investigative piece will get more money.
I think people tend to underestimate how most publishers don't rely on subscription revenue to survive. All the money is in advertising, which is why I think you see less focus on trying alternative subscription models like this. It's a great idea in theory, but in practice probably wouldn't provide enough revenue to be worth it for medium to small publishers.
Also, say this middleman company does exist and is adopted by a large portion of the publishers out there. How would it benefit them to pass along the majority of that $1 per article to publishers? My hunch is that publishers would be the ones that end up getting 'crumbs' and the middleman would keep the bulk.
Publishers have been burned over the years by relying on other companies and middlemen for traffic and revenue (look at the effect Facebook has had on most news organizations, and not in a good way). Putting all their chips in one basket with a company like this would be a non-starter for most companies. They don't want to get burned again.
A similar argument could be made for a whole host of subscription services (gyms, television, etc.) but I think they all keep the subscription model because the mental transaction cost of buying a small amount of the product creates a huge barrier to use. Mental transaction cost is the stress that the buying decision places on the buyer. Someone once said that the only two prices on the internet are free and infinity, so any incremental cost is stressful. Additionally the prices needed to sustain a per-unit sales model are so high that nobody wants to buy. A great recent example is ski resorts. Before the Epic and Ikon passes, day passes were expensive but not insane. With these passes, however, the ski companies have decided to dramatically increase the daily cost and lower the subscription cost to maximize revenue.
> Between the lines: The Atlantic's new majority ownership stake from Emerson Collective, the impact investment vehicle owned by Laurene Powell Jobs, has allowed the company to accelerate its growth in recent years, including a major staff increase and expansion that began in 2018.
"Emerson Collective is a social change organization that uses a broad range of tools including philanthropy, impact investing, and policy solutions to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Established and led by Laurene Powell Jobs, Emerson Collective is working to renew some of society’s most calcified systems, creating new possibilities for individuals, families, and communities."
Laurene Powell Jobs has ~$22 billion. She could pay the salaries of these 68 employees for the next 10 years if she felt like it without noticing a change in her bank account.
Obviously she is not obligated to do anything, but if employees of my "social change organization" that were hired under my watch, with my encouragement, were impacted by a possibly temporary economic downturn in the middle of a global pandemic and I could help them without sacrificing anything, I hope I would.
She does not have $22B in cash. You pay employees in cash. Impact investing is just as brutal as any other investment fund. Dollars can be deployed more impactfully elsewhere. The goal is investments that create long term structural change and subsidizing employees of a declining business doesn’t move them towards that goal.
One plausible explanation is that management wants these employees out, so they're taking advantage of a once-in-a-decade opportunity to trim headcount without PR consequences.
Several established, profitable businesses have been repurposed for social change.
ESPN, The Atlantic, etc.
As a conservative, I find it a little unfair. The institutions typically have built up a legacy of middle-of-the-road communications, then they are repurposed with a decidedly leftward tilt.
Still, The Atlantic provides enjoyable to read articles, even if I don't agree with everything they say. I'm not happy that they undergo this loss.
The “billions of dollars” these people have can’t be used, at scale, to pay the salaries of workers during the economic shutdown. Almost all of that wealth is paper money—the promise to receive a share of future profits from operating companies. If the economy is shut down and those companies aren’t making profits, that equity isn’t worth anything.
As noted in the Vice layoffs thread a week ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23193140), these industry layoffs are a function of revenue pipelines, and it is 100% not related to the type of content or political leanings.
This sucks. The Atlantic was doing great reporting in the beginning of corona, pointing out how few tests were.being done. It was necessary work that reminded me how important real journalism is.
The Atlantic and Jeffrey Goldberg (now the editor-in-chief) laid the ideological groundwork for the US to invade Iraq, one of - if not the biggest crimes of the 21st century. [1] The Atlantic sold the Iraq War with reporting that relied heavily on war hawks, neocons in the Bush administration, and at times complete fabrications. It it is hard to shed a tear for an organization which helped create a conflict resulting in the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis.
Their subscription model is strange—it’s $49 per year, which isn’t a lot, but it FEELS like a lot because there is no monthly option like most publications.
But events are a huge portion of business for pubs like The Atlantic. It is sad to see these cuts though because they are really putting out some of the most important thinking around this crisis right now, cutting stuff that digs beneath the surface and highlights the broader trends at play.
I fear the day when all the financially viable "news" is some YouTube channel with no investigative staff powering it, but caters to a niche that doesn't care about accuracy or integrity to sustain itself.
I don't know - I would argue that Scott Manley and Tim Dodd do a better job then any mainstream media on reporting on Space news, and the tech youtube community is better then almost anyone save maybe Ars Technica.
Why don't the magazines get together and offer a package deal? Kind of like cable but for print media. I know Apple has something like that but I'm not an Appostle. If I could pick the publications I want I would be on that in a heartbeat.
It's my fault - I let my print subscription lapse because someone gave me their free New Yorker gift subscription. I didn't feel like I could keep up with both plus the Atlantic RSS feed still has a lot of good stuff for free.
what is really the minimally-functional enterprise size for a journalistic organization? you need reporters, editors and fact-checkers. that is the atlantic model. or, if you want just reporters, we can have pure indy reporting on massive platforms where it is a pure marketplace of ideas. the future does not appear to favor the atlantic model.
I guess I would have assumed that these positions would all have been furloughed months ago since I don't imagine very many of them fit the qualification of "essential"
I hope this isn't indicative of larger business troubles.
They've provided some of the most quality editorial over the years.
Thankfully John Oliver, podcasts, paid individual-contributor newsletters, and documentaries are taking over long-form investigative journalism and news-aggregator sites and social media are increasing their reach, but I still feel there's value in "traditional" editorial institutions.
I'm surprised how much rationalization towards the billionaire class is being employed to reason against sympathy and sustenance for the working class individuals impacted by this.
The billionaires have all the advantages, and often hold a moral and political posture that they promote socially that are at odds with these actions.
your claim is that the atlantic is failing _specifically_ because they post too much anti-trump content?
it would be pretty easy to disprove this to yourself by observing that magazine/newspaper sales have been in decline since before trump was a presidential candidate.
The whole "Orange Man Bad" thing is the most vapid, discussion-stifling meme I've ever seen, and it's really disappointing that the right has adopted it wholesale. It's practically a guaranteed response to any criticism of Trump whatsoever, no matter how measured or ultimately warranted. Calling people "NPCs" for disagreeing with you is really revealing, and I don't think it leaves the impression that you believe it does.
You can't actually think he's beyond reproach, can you?
Atlantic is left wing, as are Vox, Buzzfeed, and numerous other troubled properties cited in the article. I remember actually enjoying the Atlantic a few years ago, but their unfortunate editorial decision to focus on partisanship has crowded out other, more substantial topics for which they were once known.
[+] [-] jbellis|5 years ago|reply
"The 68 staff cuts are mostly attributable to the collapse of the company's events business."
Reporters aren't losing their jobs here. Events staff with no events to run are.
[+] [-] linsomniac|5 years ago|reply
"sales, editorial and events staff are all impacted".
So not just event staff.
[+] [-] burkaman|5 years ago|reply
There will more than likely be events to run in the near future.
[+] [-] GnarfGnarf|5 years ago|reply
What if I could pay on a per-article basis? I wouldn't have a problem paying 50¢ or $1.00 for an article I was interested in. It's not practical for each publisher to set up micro-payments. But, if there were an intermediate agent that accepted and managed payments for individual random articles, the money could be aggregated and remitted in a lump sum to the publishers. Sort of like an old-fashioned news stand.
What the newspaper business needs is a middleman who will collect micro-payments from me and millions of others, aggregate the money, charge my credit card once a month, and pay each publication weekly or monthly for the collective readers who have selected articles.
The middleman could accept PayPal payments, or I could open an account with my credit card, and pay once a month for all the individual articles I have read.
There is a Website called Blendle that proposes to do this. However, only a subset of articles are available. Publishers are reserving the prime content for full subscribers, and leaving Blendle with the crumbs. That's not going to work.
[+] [-] nillium|5 years ago|reply
When you subscribe to a publication, you have to make decision once. You think about the amount of money against all future potential articles you can read, and decide from there. When you're paying for EACH article, all of a sudden you have to make that decision with every click. Is this article REALLY worth 50 cents?
Not to mention, this incentivizes the totally wrong things. People say they hate clickbait, but the aggregators and social networks that now act as gatekeepers force that kind of behavior -- publishers of course only get paid when you click through to their article. And in this case, it's even more profound -- we're no longer talking about a few cents from display ads, but 50 cents to $1.
For what its worth, we're trying a different tack -- especially when it comes to local news: https://blog.nillium.com/what-can-napster-teach-local-news/
[+] [-] okennedy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 52-6F-62|5 years ago|reply
Pressreader is also pretty good, but web-based. https://www.pressreader.com/
The Toronto Public Library even offers free subscriptions to it with a library card—so I'd check into your local library.
[+] [-] blackoil|5 years ago|reply
To reduce it being a pure click-bait pool, we can also add some sort of tipping model, wherein part of my money is distributed according to like/rating I have given. So a 5* investigative piece will get more money.
[+] [-] pvg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donohoe|5 years ago|reply
Been tried. Many times. By numerous entities, and some media orgs themselves. It doesn't really work. The issue is people.
[+] [-] creinhardt|5 years ago|reply
Also, say this middleman company does exist and is adopted by a large portion of the publishers out there. How would it benefit them to pass along the majority of that $1 per article to publishers? My hunch is that publishers would be the ones that end up getting 'crumbs' and the middleman would keep the bulk.
Publishers have been burned over the years by relying on other companies and middlemen for traffic and revenue (look at the effect Facebook has had on most news organizations, and not in a good way). Putting all their chips in one basket with a company like this would be a non-starter for most companies. They don't want to get burned again.
[+] [-] hardtke|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burkaman|5 years ago|reply
"Emerson Collective is a social change organization that uses a broad range of tools including philanthropy, impact investing, and policy solutions to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Established and led by Laurene Powell Jobs, Emerson Collective is working to renew some of society’s most calcified systems, creating new possibilities for individuals, families, and communities."
- https://www.emersoncollective.com/about-us/
Laurene Powell Jobs has ~$22 billion. She could pay the salaries of these 68 employees for the next 10 years if she felt like it without noticing a change in her bank account.
Obviously she is not obligated to do anything, but if employees of my "social change organization" that were hired under my watch, with my encouragement, were impacted by a possibly temporary economic downturn in the middle of a global pandemic and I could help them without sacrificing anything, I hope I would.
[+] [-] ABeeSea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SheinhardtWigCo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TechBro8615|5 years ago|reply
What “impact” could one expect to have by investing in a media organization, other than pushing an agenda?
[+] [-] spikels|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RickJWagner|5 years ago|reply
ESPN, The Atlantic, etc.
As a conservative, I find it a little unfair. The institutions typically have built up a legacy of middle-of-the-road communications, then they are repurposed with a decidedly leftward tilt.
Still, The Atlantic provides enjoyable to read articles, even if I don't agree with everything they say. I'm not happy that they undergo this loss.
[+] [-] rayiner|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Drunkfoowl|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] minimaxir|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayvd|5 years ago|reply
Don't think you can make a statement like "100% not related".
[+] [-] alistproducer2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbHXBY1D|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Goldberg#Views_on_Iraq
[+] [-] isoskeles|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForHackernews|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeeone|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shortformblog|5 years ago|reply
But events are a huge portion of business for pubs like The Atlantic. It is sad to see these cuts though because they are really putting out some of the most important thinking around this crisis right now, cutting stuff that digs beneath the surface and highlights the broader trends at play.
[+] [-] nojito|5 years ago|reply
I fear the day when all the financially viable "news" is some YouTube channel with no investigative staff powering it, but caters to a niche that doesn't care about accuracy or integrity to sustain itself.
[+] [-] InTheArena|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blaser-waffle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunstone|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zwieback|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmhsieh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|5 years ago|reply
- Sales (for ads/sponsorship to actually make said revenue)
- Tech (for managing said traffic to make said revenue)
- Social media/distribution (for sourcing said traffic to make said revenue)
- Data Analysis (for analyzing all of the above)
- Legal (not directly related to revenue but is essentially required for journalism at this level)
Even the "indie" journalists often have teams in these areas working for them, just with less visibility.
[+] [-] tengbretson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Traster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanmgreen|5 years ago|reply
They've provided some of the most quality editorial over the years.
Thankfully John Oliver, podcasts, paid individual-contributor newsletters, and documentaries are taking over long-form investigative journalism and news-aggregator sites and social media are increasing their reach, but I still feel there's value in "traditional" editorial institutions.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ProAm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonv|5 years ago|reply
The billionaires have all the advantages, and often hold a moral and political posture that they promote socially that are at odds with these actions.
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GoodJokes|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mikl|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] m0zg|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blueline|5 years ago|reply
it would be pretty easy to disprove this to yourself by observing that magazine/newspaper sales have been in decline since before trump was a presidential candidate.
[+] [-] RonaldRaygun|5 years ago|reply
You can't actually think he's beyond reproach, can you?
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|5 years ago|reply