First, one of the arguments being made here is that previous ad revenue subsidised content, but now it subsidises social media, so content must cover its costs directly.
One of the implications of that is that in the "old" system you might get a bundle of content, some of which you liked and some of which you didn't, but the whole thing was subsidised so you didn't mind this, because you weren't really paying for the bits you didn't like or didn't consume. And now in the "new" system you have to pay full freight, so you're reluctant to pay for things you don't even want.
In short, it's about people saying "I don't want to pay for an entire cable package (or NYT subscription), I'd rather pay for the exact content I want because it's cheaper overall, even if it's more expensive per item".
But the example given is this:
> Yes, you get better, more convenient and largely ad-free viewing — but there’s a good chance you’re paying more for it. The same applies to Twitter and Substack, where signing up to just four writers’ output at $5 a month each is already more than the cost of a $17 New York Times subscription, which gives you a greater breadth of coverage.
And that sounds like something quite different. If people are paying $20/month in Substack subscriptions instead of $17/month for a NYT subscription, they're not doing it to save money, but because they think they can get better content that way.
In fact, at the moment I am spending $20/month across Substack and Patreon for writing I care about, while the NYT is running a promotion for an online subscription for $3/month for the first year, then $8/month thereafter, but I'm happy with the value I'm getting from Substack, and I wouldn't dream of paying for the NYT, because in my view it's not even worth $3/month.
This isn't a money story, this is a quality story. And I don't think it has much to do with ad revenue either.
Second:
> Perhaps now we can forge a better understanding of the value of content. It costs money to produce, so it should also cost money to consume.
Again, I'm paying $20/month or so to Substack (mostly) and Patreon, so clearly I agree that paying money for content is (at least sometimes) a good idea. However, I think this is just a ridiculous, meaningless platitude.
Education and health care cost money to product; in most countries at least some of both are provider at no direct cost to consumers. Scarce natural resources (or broadcast spectrum) costs little or nothing to produce, but should certainly cost money to consume. And just because it cost you money to produce doesn't mean anyone will (or should) choose to pay money to consume it.
I once came close to subscribing to Bloomberg, but eventually decided against it, partly because it's pricy ($35/month!), but also in large part because so much of their content is just so poorly written and poorly researched. (Matt Levine is, always, excellent, but he's very much the exception. And, of course, his content is available for free, outside the Bloomberg paywall.)
Businessweek used to be incredibly cheap, I remember having a web+ print subscription back in 2014 and paid very little. I'm legitimately shocked to see how much it costs now.
First, one of the arguments being made here is that previous ad revenue subsidised content, but now it subsidises social media, so content must cover its costs directly.
One of the implications of that is that in the "old" system you might get a bundle of content, some of which you liked and some of which you didn't, but the whole thing was subsidised so you didn't mind this, because you weren't really paying for the bits you didn't like or didn't consume. And now in the "new" system you have to pay full freight, so you're reluctant to pay for things you don't even want.
In short, it's about people saying "I don't want to pay for an entire cable package (or NYT subscription), I'd rather pay for the exact content I want because it's cheaper overall, even if it's more expensive per item".
But the example given is this:
> Yes, you get better, more convenient and largely ad-free viewing — but there’s a good chance you’re paying more for it. The same applies to Twitter and Substack, where signing up to just four writers’ output at $5 a month each is already more than the cost of a $17 New York Times subscription, which gives you a greater breadth of coverage.
And that sounds like something quite different. If people are paying $20/month in Substack subscriptions instead of $17/month for a NYT subscription, they're not doing it to save money, but because they think they can get better content that way.
In fact, at the moment I am spending $20/month across Substack and Patreon for writing I care about, while the NYT is running a promotion for an online subscription for $3/month for the first year, then $8/month thereafter, but I'm happy with the value I'm getting from Substack, and I wouldn't dream of paying for the NYT, because in my view it's not even worth $3/month.
This isn't a money story, this is a quality story. And I don't think it has much to do with ad revenue either.
Second:
> Perhaps now we can forge a better understanding of the value of content. It costs money to produce, so it should also cost money to consume.
Again, I'm paying $20/month or so to Substack (mostly) and Patreon, so clearly I agree that paying money for content is (at least sometimes) a good idea. However, I think this is just a ridiculous, meaningless platitude.
Education and health care cost money to product; in most countries at least some of both are provider at no direct cost to consumers. Scarce natural resources (or broadcast spectrum) costs little or nothing to produce, but should certainly cost money to consume. And just because it cost you money to produce doesn't mean anyone will (or should) choose to pay money to consume it.
I once came close to subscribing to Bloomberg, but eventually decided against it, partly because it's pricy ($35/month!), but also in large part because so much of their content is just so poorly written and poorly researched. (Matt Levine is, always, excellent, but he's very much the exception. And, of course, his content is available for free, outside the Bloomberg paywall.)