Like the people that get the sleep apnea devices and won't shut up about how much better their life is, I'm constantly (and noisily) surprised by how shitty the news writing and presentation I was putting up with was before I subscribed to a bunch of actual newspapers.
WSJ: $100-$150/year
WP: $187/year
NYT: $195/year
All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked out and they're all on sale (unlikely).
So, that puts them at or above the cost of a TV or Music streaming subscription. If you're subscribing to "a bunch", that's pretty expensive.
edit: I should add, I believe all of these prices are a "with ads" price, which arguably makes them a worse value than an ad-free streaming subscription of equal price.
Articles usually show up there a few days later than in the originating newspaper, but for quality journalism that's usually not an issue, since it takes a lot more to write it to begin with.
I remember hearing that the majority/average person in the US doesn't have $400 spare for an emergency, how on earth are they expected to be able to consume "better" media on this business model? And of course this would encourage those papers to produce material that supports the views of the people who are able to consume it, only further adding to social divides.
Canceling the nytimes was also about as difficult as canceling Sirius XM radio (forcing a phone call). One level up from canceling a gym membership.
Maybe apple can force them to be better.
Having said that, I tried it out and canceled before the six month trial expired. Personally, I just didn't find the quality to be THAT much higher than CNN. Just non-stop Trump ranting, more or less op-ed content on the front page section, etc.
I've settled into a habit of using the junk cable news sites for "breaking" stories, and getting more in-depth content from The Atlantic (left-leaning perspective) and The Economist (right-leaning perspective). Both of which I can read digitally for free via my local public library.
(I actually started paying for The Atlantic, because it's only $20/yr and I feel good about supporting them. The Economist is ten times that amount, so I don't feel THAT good!)
Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.
> Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.
Have you followed TE on Facebook or Twitter? There’s plenty of clickbait there, although they do now hive some of it off to 1843 Magazine and Espresso
Something that might help: check your alumni programs, they may give access to subscriptions. Your public library may also have them; I was surprised at the amount of stuff offered online. I used to be a habitual paper subscriber of the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books but switched after I found libraries offering free e-access.
One paper that I'm happy paying for is the Financial Times (FT). They're worth it.
I ran into this problem with an app [1] I built, which has a partnership with the WSJ and gives free guest access to their content. When iOS 11 came out, we got lots of support emails from people wondering why they had to log in with their guest pass all the time. In my experience, it happens at least once a day. Our users put up with this because we give them free access to the WSJ, but I can't imagine putting up with this as a paying customer.
The big names in magazine publishing who created Texture did.
>New York, NY, December 8, 2009 – Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, News Corporation and Time Inc. today jointly announced that they have entered into an independent venture to develop open standards for a new digital storefront and related technology that will allow consumers to enjoy their favorite media content on portable digital devices.
http://allthingsd.com/20091208/nows-the-time-finally-publish...
As for their revenue model.
>That service, which was eventually called Texture, paid out 10 percent of its monthly revenue to its owner-operators, who divvied it up based on the usage their titles generated. And publishers who sold their stuff through the service but didn’t own a piece of Texture captured 50 percent of the revenue, also cut up by usage.
https://www.recode.net/2019/2/13/18224013/apple-news-publish...
Apparently the magazine industry and the newspaper industry have different ideas on what a equitable revenue share might be.
I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple?
(an aside, but the 50% cut just seems absurd. Just reads like Apple saying "because we can", there's no way the cost of distributing an article is anywhere near the same as the cost of making it)
The newspaper industry was founded on (although nobody really understood it until the invention of the internet) being the intermediary between consumers and companies. In 2019 the business has changed to content provision. But these old line companies (and who is older line than Apple and the WSJ?) can't help but try to discover intermediary points of control.
Pah.
It's even more unhealthy if I can't have an informed discussion about the news of the day with you because you got your news from the NYT and I got my news from Times of London and we got two entirely different sides of the story and we can't go and see each other's sources of information. That sounds to me like a terrible situation to put ourselves in.
I would much rather pay $10 bucks a month and know that that revenue is distributed amongst the papers I read in proportion to how long I've spent reading each article- in exactly the same way Youtube tracks watched minutes.
Probably not the best example. With the NYT and the Times of London, you might get different perspectives on a news story (as opposed to an opinion piece), but they will both be mostly correct. You should be able to have informed discussion.
To make your example work, you need something more like an AlterNet reader trying to have an informed discussion with an InfoWars reader.
Newspapers seem to be the original subscription model--you only have one source of news.
50% cut? And likely no access to customer data, with content embedded in a proprietary app outside of a news paper’s control... why would publishers agree to shutting off so many avenues for future innovation and strategic independence?
But you’ll have to investigate for yourself if you’d like to know more since I don’t work or speak for them and just have some personal experience.
Why are credit card numbers important information? All they would know is what the credit card is, but it's not like they can sell the credit card or use that number to get more purchases, etc, from that number, can they?
Because also, nothing is said about how the subscription is divvied up. Is the remaining 50% ($5/mo.) split among publishers by the % of articles read?
>Apple News host a bunch of text and some images $10.00
Is it fair?
Still seems crazy... Apple seems to need the WSJ more than the WSJ would need Apple for this service. WSJ is a marquee name and content producer that millions of people are willing to pay for. WSJ is profitable and seems to do just fine in print and digital distribution.
While the $10 price point may be the correct one for all parties involved (a value price point expands scale without expanding cost) - the 50% cut seems wild.
It’s not that I would never pay, either. I do pay contributions to some sites where the amount stays fixed, such as a monthly recurring donation to Wikipedia.
I like having all of my news in fewer apps rather than more. I’d subscribe to the Journal if it was part of Apple News, but as a stand-alone app, I’m not interested.
Similarly, I listen to as many of my favorite streaming radion stations through TuneIn as possible, rather than having a folder full of individual apps.
IIRC actual "investigative journalism" is less than 2% of the NYT's budget. Even though the cut is very high, most media companies may be coming out ahead based on where they're currently spending their budget.
Citation needed.
» I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple?
You should absolutely cancel your WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple. I agree 50% cut is a little steep but I am worried Apple might not have enough clout. What's to stop WSJ from spinning off (for example) new media into a separate entity therefore allow Apple news access to only a subset of its offerings? Does Apple have enough power to call a spade a spade?
Leaving aside the comment about pricing, how do you consume more varied news than those "select few"? I read The Economist, NYT and WSJ every morning. Reading several articles (often on the same topic) across all three takes me about an hour. For a while I was trying to read Foreign Policy too but there's just not enough time.
I can only do this because I commute into the city on a relatively quiet train ride. I can't imagine adding another news source to this routine, let alone a bunch of them. What would you do, have a Monday set of sources, a Tuesday set and so on?
In fact, they can often afford a monthly bill where the total yearly cost is considerably more than they could afford up front.
Credit card companies make a lot of money off this difference.
Give me a break. The only true thing you said was that journalists need to be paid, and they're a massive expense.
If I would be willing to subscribe at the promotional price but not at the regular price, they have a sales process that is designed to capture and retain my subscription dollars by obfuscating the true price at the time of opt-in and making it hard to unsubscribe after I realize how much it actually costs. Neither of these seem great from the reader's perspective.
Take a look at the Wikipedia page covering The Economist's editorial stance[1]. In particular, note their presidential endorsements and their respective positions on climate change, drug decriminalization/legalization and American military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To drill into a specific example, consider that they've historically endorsed Democratic presidential candidates more often than not; on the other hand they endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 because they agreed with his, "small government, pro-market philosophy".
While they haven't done it in recent memory, they have in the past abstained from making any specific endorsement for a presidential candidate. More recently they haven't shied away from criticizing both candidates.[2]
____________________
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance
2. Here's a fun one: in 2004 The Economist very weakly (and sardonically) endorsed Kerry by saying, "The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry." In contrast they gave two ringing endorsements for Obama.
Essentially, people are only willing to pay for "news" with which they are in accordance. Whether or not a particular news source is factually accurate, is very much a secondary concern. (Witness Bloomberg.) So you generally have two huge markets, one for "news" with a conservative bent, the other for "news" with a liberal bent.
Of course you have several markets, that are much smaller, for other types of "news". But very few markets where factual accuracy is at a premium. Add to that the fact that the few markets where factual accuracy is at a premium are small, and it's not hard to see why no one really caters to them. (All of that doesn't even consider the very real problem that it's hard to address such markets with a product that those markets would accept).
So pointing out the inaccuracies in Bloomberg, or CNN, or WSJ, or NY Times, etc misses the point. These media companies are in the business of selling "news". They don't put a priority on the business of selling accuracy because the business of accuracy doesn't really pay very well.
Think of it this way, you likely know a lot of people who consume, say, FOX or CNN, but how many people are you acquainted with who watch C-Span?
I don't think my choice of subscriptions illustrates the point that I am a consumer who buys news that suits my point of view. You are making the assumption that Conservative={Bloomberg, WSJ, Economist} (I would not call two of those three conservative) and therefore I am a conservative who refuses to read Liberal={...}
What it actually represents is someone who is sick of modern political discourse, tired of clickbait with false headlines and just wants classical news that can keep me informed of world events, specially financial events that may impact my daily decision making.
I want to pay people who will keep me informed, not people who want a slice of my attention or a slice of my emotional energy.