[andrewvc]

> But while some readers might not subscribe to outlets that give away some of their best journalism for free, it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run.

In other words we have a wild guess this will be sustainable for news organizations.

Stories like this are always popular on HN but I’m convinced get upvoted because people agree with the idea of more free stuff. I’m skeptical that this will improve the quality of reporting in an already under resourced journalistic environment. Maybe it’s a good idea, but it’s hardly obvious.

[karmelapple]

I have subscribed to them for other reasons recently, and this only solidifies my subscription to remain for another year.

I sure don't work for anything close to Wired or their parent organization, but if you want good journalism, support it with your dollars. A year's subscription is less than a nice dinner out (or even a not-so-nice dinner out!).

[JohnTHaller]

I subscribed to Wired a few weeks ago specifically because they were doing good reporting on things that other media was letting slid.

[Drew_]

It doesn't sound like much of a wild guess to me. Basically every single publication is letting customers sample their news before paying (free articles, free trials, etc). This is just more of the same.

[scarecrowbob]

A lot of my paid media consumption comes from podcasts which create enough free content to keep me engaged but which offer enough extra content that I want to pay for that content.

At the scale of "small but functionally profitable podcasts" it seems to be working, so it's not like that model can't work out of hand.

I am not sure it will work for print publishing, but it seems to be working for the patreon-funded folks.

[duxup]

The users of the internet want things for free and then we complain when we don’t get it…. Or when someone else pays for it… :(

[JumpCrisscross]

> it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run

These hybrid models don't work. Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia. Sell your damn product. Or sell your readers' eyeballs.

I've hands down seen the best journalism from categories 1 and 2: folks focussed on the mission or confident enough in their quality to paywall everything. I've rarely seen it from 3. I've almost never seen it from those who try mixing. (The exception being those who sell traditional, i.e. non-targeted, ads.)

[inetknght]

> Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia.

So... quite profitable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AFundraising_statis...

[johnmaguire]

There's the other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.) Though I'm not sure that's a great option in this climate either.

[derektank]

Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work. You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem.

I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.

[mmooss]

> wild guess

Why would it be a wild guess? This is an online news organization with long experience.