
Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model - djug
https://mondaynote.com/the-consumer-trends-that-destroyed-medias-business-model-945941075557?source=rss----c537d80ed0a---4&gi=f3fd52688073
======
mirimir
> Like many, I was wrong about the subscription model for the news media. I
> thought that a possible scheme for subscriptions could be: one for national
> media, in the $12–20 a month range, another, less expensive ($5–$9/month)
> for local news, and the last one for specialized content, whether it is a
> business or a leisure publication.

I can't imagine how that could ever have worked. Back in the day, I mostly
read stuff linked by news.google.com or in various mail lists. Now it's mainly
from HN. But either way, I'd need perhaps 20-40 subscriptions. Which would be
unworkable.

We really need a system that pays realistic prices (maybe $0.10 or so) per
article read. Whatever you'd get by dividing cost per "issue" by number of
articles available to read.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Now it's mainly from HN. But either way, I'd need perhaps 20-40
> subscriptions.

No, you should be paying one subscription, to HN, which should be making
arrangements with the news sources. Paying for subscriptions from the sources
when HN is your gateway is like readers directly subscribing to wire services
when they get their news by opening up a newspaper.

The old media “portals” have been displaced and become sources consumed
through other portals, but business models haven't fully adapted.

~~~
lubujackson
If news subscriptions ever get around to working it has to happen the way
things progressed with music: siloed content people mostly don't pay for
(check), widespread piracy that allows people to enjoy unfettered access
(let's say the Google trick/private browsing trick counts). Next comes the
switcheroo phase, when a company comes along and makes heaps of illegal money
off the piracy while negotiating with the content owners in a bid for
legitimacy.

The economics are too hard otherwise. The New York Times won't cede pricing
control willingly and consumers won't pay subscription prices to individual
producers. And middleman companies will always have two impossible battles,
pricing and content coverage.

Music might just be the sweet spot, though. Spotify works great while Netflix
is getting torn apart by the sharks. Video might be too expensive/lucrative to
aggregate and news articles might be too cheap/pervasive to bother.

------
CM30
Eh, I think most of this is only true because the internet has basically
destroyed the barrier to entry for posting/sharing news and content. Why
should people pay for news/subscriptions to news if there are thousands of
news sites/publications out there offering the same information for free?

Plus unlike the forms of entertainment sold on services like Spotify or
Netflix, news is basically a commodity. For many people, the source of the
news isn't some unique selling point that makes them want to pay for it.

So even if their 'favourite' news source does become paid, they'll just go
somewhere else and get the same information. Especially given that anyone can
basically just copy the giist of a news story and rewrite it in their own
words, and most of the media does exactly that. Even if some news site
publishes a 'unique' story, it'll be on their competitors sites in one form or
another in five minutes flat.

Contrasts this to other forms of media/entertainment people suggest
aggregators/services for. Your favourite music artist, video game, TV show,
etc can't be 'replaced' by a generic alternative. If you like Star Wars or
Marvel or what not, you're gonna have to go through Disney in some way.

There's no generic brand Star Wars or Avengers that's 'good enough' for many
people.

Have trends changed? Sure, but they've changed because tech and competition
have enabled them to.

------
numakerg
> Netflix eats online news

If Netflix is eating online news both in terms of attention and money then why
wouldn't they partner with Netflix? I know a few seniors that are reluctant to
switch because it doesn't have news or weather.

~~~
Doxin
Honestly having a daily news show on netflix seems like such a no-brainer that
I can't fathom why it isn't on there yet. You'll get a whole load of people
opening netflix at least once a day for basically.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Each story could have its own video (like news stories on a text-based news
site having their own page) and viewers could just watch the ones that
interest them. Or they could stream them back-to-back like a season of TV. The
weather forecast could be a separate video too. On-demand news.

------
flr03
It's a very difficult market. I have the feeling that journalists need support
and more money to provide quality content but the current price-point of
subscription is too high for the majority of people. On the other hand, free
content financed by ads generally does not deliver on quality. Business models
for online media are still immature, I hope they will find the right formula.

------
mycall
Maybe if the different news medias organized to create a shared payment
account, then individual articles could be easily deducted from that one
bucket.

~~~
muraiki
I thought I saw a company recently doing this... in the past, Discors tried
this, but only offered a selection of articles across the various sources it
covered: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/02/discors-adds-
nyt/](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/02/discors-adds-nyt/)

Edit: Sorry, my reading comprehension is bad. This is a pay once, read all you
want across multiple source things, not a bucket to deduct payments from. So
what I responded with is not what you were looking for... but maybe it's
interesting anyway.

