[askura]

All the best to them. I was involved with a few Vice projects in 2011-2014 and it was honestly leadership that let them down. They have great talent but it's not easy in this day and age to run any kind of content site.

Hope they pull it off.

[nickthegreek]

Good luck to them but $100/yr sub is the cheapest tier. oof!

[Humboldtsnee]

That said, it's going to actual workers who actually do the journalism.

Supporting 404 feels better than sending money to some corp where it gets pocketed by the c suite.

[iterminate]

I wrote a long a comment theorising why $100/year is a great starting point and then discovered you can toggle between "yearly" and "monthly". So they do offer $10/month -- it's just hidden behind a toggle.

[googlryas]

$100 sounds much worse than phrasing it as 27 cents a day.

(cue cheesy music): "For just a quarter a day, you can save a struggling journalist from corporate overlords, submarine PR pieces, and human interest stories"

[selectodude]

Means they need to average 4200 subscribers to pay themselves and run the place.

[jzb]

If anybody has the magic formula for pricing, I'd be all ears. Yeah, $100 a year seems steep - but OTOH are twice as many people going to subscribe for $50? Five times as many for $20? (Or more...)

I don't know what the answer / formula is, but I pay more than that per year for my LWN.net subscription and for a few other publications. Less than that for others, but I really don't know what the "right" level would be to maximize revenue so they're able to pay themselves a decent salary and keep the lights on.

[doctorwho42]

Cheaper than being owned by a billionaire, it just is a visible cost not external cost.

[patmorgan23]

Less than $10/month