
New York Times app autoplays video ads on articles even with paid subscription - jamesknelson
https://twitter.com/james_k_nelson/status/1051404721473241088
======
hliyan
I wrote the following in 2015:

"...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people
with buying power, in other words, _the exact same people advertisers look to
target_. The more buying power you demonstrate, the more advertisers will
target you. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will
pay to put them back in. With the way the world currently works, _selling ads,
it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content_."

Previous HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803)

~~~
yholio
As a consequence, the ad-driven web is much more open and inclusive. The
marginal cost of serving another page view to a Pakistani reader is zero,
while a $10 subscription is a massive expense for someone who might earn just
$100 a month. So if the content can be monetized by selling western eyeballs,
the ad driven web works as a massive cultural redistribution to societies that
can't really afford to develop similar resources in either subscription or ad-
supported models.

~~~
hliyan
The problem with ad-driven content is that the content is no longer 'pure' \--
it is optimized to maximize eyeballs rather than serve its purpose (e.g. news
is meant to keep readers up to date with current affairs they're interested
in, art and literature is meant to, well, do what art and literature do). When
these things are driven by the desire to maximize advertising revenue, they
take on a completely different quality.

~~~
CM30
Was any content ever 'pure'? Newspapers always relied on ad revenue, and there
was always the potential for a conflict of interest there. Whether it's
internet sites or papers or TV news shows, they can't afford to annoy their
advertisers too much.

The only ways to avoid this are either:

A: Go with publically/government funded content, which will likely have a
government bias (or one that encourages people to pay for them).

B: Go with free fan/volunteer run sources which don't have monetary interests,
and that's becoming rarer and rarer nowadays.

------
notacoward
NYT is still desperate to gets ad revenue because they've chosen a
subscription model that doesn't work. The same subscription model that doesn't
work for a gazillion other newspapers and magazines online, precisely because
it's a gazillion-subscription model. Most people are information omnivores.
Few want to pay $X/month to the New York Times _and_ $X/month to the
Washington Post _and_ $X/month to the Wall Street Journal _and_ $X/month to
each of a dozen other publications, just to read an average of less than one
article per month on each of them. It's not just the expense, it's also the
hassle of having to create logins and remember passwords for all of them, plus
the security risk of having to trust every one of their IT departments not to
leak your info.

I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-publication price to
have a single subscription that would work across all of them, with articles
on any counting against my monthly quota. I suspect I'm far from alone, but
because nobody's making that offer we all continue to use ad blockers and
workarounds, while the publishers continue to be desperate. That's why they
keep getting in our faces like this, and also why their product is cruddier
than it used to be. If we want a strong press, we need a better subscription
model.

~~~
michaelt

      I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-
      publication price to have a single subscription that
      would work across all of them
    

Perhaps you'd like to try [https://blendle.com](https://blendle.com) ?
Although it's in beta in the US, I got an invite to join the beta within
minutes of expressing an interest.

Admittedly it doesn't cover _every_ publication, but you can't expect them to
when it's not even out of beta yet.

~~~
EwanG
Only one I didn't see there that I read commonly is Bloomberg. But they (like
NYT and so many others) can be easily worked around by using an Incognito
window - use up all your "free articles", close the window, open another one,
here's 10 more...

Which makes me inclined to believe that, knowing it is relatively easy to work
around their pay wall, they are more concerned with total eye balls than total
subscriptions.

As another data point, while you can read the main Bloomberg this way, you
can't read their Bloomberg Terminal Online without a horrendously expensive
subscription - which I suspect reflects what the true cost of news is...

------
mikestew
I’m a subscriber, and like a print newspaper I’m fine with ads. Yet the online
version of NYT was a large inspiration for propping a PiHole. Why? Because
unlike print, the ads are blinky and distracting. And because ad blockers
don’t help in the NYT iOS app. So now I, a high-income subscriber, don’t see
your ads anymore, NYT. You pushed me too far, NYT, and the only one that
suffers is _you_ , because my experience just improved.

~~~
deftturtle
Adguard works, too. I’ve been using it a while but eventually would like to
try a PiHole. Do you find yourself having to adjust the settings often, or
does it work fairly well?

~~~
mikestew
It’s pretty much fire-and-forget. Set your lists (or take the defaults), point
your router DNS to the Pi-Hole, sorted. That’s the simple version. You’re on
HN, you’ll want to fiddle, but if just loaded it with default lists and never
updated it, it would still probably serve well for some years.

Once in a great while I’ll disable it for five minutes to look at something
(Facebook or the like). But that a few button clicks.

------
wallflower
Contrast with the very small world of cash flow positive paid subscription
sites like The Information.

2.8 million views for each and every of The Information’s 730 yearly articles
based on $1.90 average CPM to break even on revenue with paid subscriptions.

> The subscription model is easier with The Information because of the focus.
> People know what they’re getting. If you’re The New York Times, not everyone
> is interested in everything you do. You’re just counting on people who like
> your brand.”

> Assuming the site makes at least 4 million from 730 stories a year,
> according to some back-of-the-napkin math, the site generates about $5,500
> per article published. To earn that same amount from general display
> advertising — which advisory firm Peter J. Solomon Company pegs at an
> average CPM of $1.90 — each and every article The Information publishes
> would need to attract more than 2.8 million ad impressions.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500)

------
butterfi
What is the value proposition for the user to use the app over the website? I
tend to avoid content apps because they seem to offer the company more value
then the consumer. Web browser works just fine and I can more easily determine
what the publisher is up to.

------
xae342
I like NYT’s articles, but have been hesitant to actually subscribe due to
issues like this, and other stories where they make it hard to unsubscribe,
require you call them etc.

~~~
mikestew
Subscribe through iTunes or (I think) Amazon. I know on iTunes it’s a flip of
a switch to unsubscribe. And then run some form of PiHole to turn off the
adds.

------
throwaway2048
There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay
companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers.

This is not, and never has been true.

~~~
BoorishBears
The way I look at it is simple.

The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay +
amount ads pay.

If you don’t like the content, don’t view it.

I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a
long time but I wanted to walk to the walk...

I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for
something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare
that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content.

And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me.

What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to
pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube
have alone? I’m not willing to pay that.

\---

But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites.

If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming
media from a content provider you don’t support.

You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that
link and showing search engines that they’re relevant.

You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how
they fund their content?

~~~
blackbrokkoli
The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content
and the entity placing the ad.

Supporting people via Patreon or PayPal? Donating to software? Participating
in open source you use? Watching an ad embedded, vetted and filmed by the
video creator (popular example: end of CinemaSins)? Buy silly merch which is
actually thoughtfull? Sure thing! I always did that und will always do that!

Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep
meditation"? Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they
copyright-trolled that? Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns
added every other week to let me click on ads? Explaining my little sister
what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but
inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO.

~~~
BoorishBears
>The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content
and the entity placing the ad.

Please point out where I did that? I don't like having words put in my mouth.

>Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep
meditation"?

Your "better sleep meditation" gets to choose it's platform. Ask them why
they're on a platform with screaming shooter ads. I'm going to go out on a
limb and say it's because they want money that screaming shooter ads pay.

>Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-
trolled that?

Are you referring to the unwarranted _automated_ copyright strike that was
sent by Sony then reversed?(admittedly after longer than it should have taken,
but still)

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-
music...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-music-you-
dont-own-the-rights-to-bachs-music-on-facebook/)

Or are you talking about recordings that Sony actually has the rights for and
fully has the right to make you pay for?

> Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week
> to let me click on ads?

Playing endless cat and mouse games with the dark patterns that let you fund
the services you're using? I mean it sounds like you're using some seriously
abusive service, maybe stop using it?

>Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy
demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO.

I don't see how YouTube is "demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads"

Actually I can barely even parse that, you mean when the entire video is a
scam ad it's less likely to be demonitized, because I find that pretty hard to
believe, or you mean scam ads are demonitized? ads don't get demonitized, they
just get removed, and if you keep doing that Google will just block you from
making ads.

But I digress, if you let a child on the internet without adult supervision,
they will find adult things. That's just the nature of the beast, ads or not.
It's unforunate that happened to you and your little sister, but if you let a
child on the internet there will eventually be uncomfortable things found.

What you should be doing for someone not old enough to know what something
like that is is curating content and letting them consume it on a platform
you're confident doesn't have anything inappropriate.

And this is anecdotal but... I don't think I've ever seen an explicit ad on
YouTube, let alone YouTube Kids. Next time you see an ad that you find
explicit, you can click on the information bubble and find out why it was
shown, the number one reason listed is usually recent searches.

~~~
totalZero
Here's where you unify the content creator and the advertiser:

> You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with
> how they fund their content?

You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to
love the sinner (content).

That's bogus.

If a company wants to make itself relevant by providing content and then
exploiting its visitors with ads, fine. Users have the option of exploiting
the content and rejecting the ads.

YouTube is successful because people choose to generate and consume content
there. There has to be some room for discussion among users about what form
that consumption takes. I reject your suggestion that users have to either
accept everything about the platform or go somewhere else.

On a different note, it's probably beneficial to YouTube to hear the
conversation about what users block and what they dislike. Otherwise someone
else will build a better mousetrap and YouTube will lose its dominance of the
video sphere. This is the way business works, otherwise we'd all be connecting
to Myspace via AOL and looking for the nearest Toys R Us on Mapquest.

~~~
BoorishBears
>You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to
love the sinner (content).

No. I’m not.

What’s bogus is you spent this many paragraphs attacking a strawman consisting
one sentence instead even one actual point I made, but I digress.

The content and the content creator are not the same.

The content doesn’t “sin” and I’m sure you knew how ridiculous that sounds the
moment you typed that. (But of course you also couldn’t say content creator
because... that’s clearly not what I said.)

The _content creator_ puts their _content_ on a platform belonging to a
_content provider_.

The content creator and provider both want to make money. My comment is
referring to how the provider makes money (which, wouldn’t you know... pays to
deliver the content!).

You can support someone on Patreon that then in turn uploads to YouTube (it’s
not even uncommon). You’re then funding to two separate entities separately.

\---

But you know what? Now that a I think about it I’d even go as far as to blame
the content creator a bit more since they chose the platform.

I mean take your “better meditation” example. Is there a reason it’s
intentionally uploaded to the platform with mid-video ads? Then monetized it
and enabled ads?

You know ads are enabled because the uploaded chooses to monetize be video
right? They chose to subject you to those ads because they want money.

They didn’t choose the ad, but they know video ads are allowed to interrupt
their content, it’s no secret.

So I won’t even say they’re faultless.

\---

>it's probably beneficial to YouTube to hear the conversation about what users
block and what they dislike

Yeah... they already have ways to do that.

You can dislike ads, you can click the info button and let them know when a
topic is no longer relevant to you.

From time to time you get ads that are just asking if you actually cared about
an ad topic “Which if these have you seen an ad for recently?”

You can go into your Google profile and select interests in a much clear way
than their guessing.

I do these things and now instead of a constant reminder of the car I bought
months ago I get interesting movies I wouldn’t have heard about otherwise, or
useful products.

\---

So in summation...

>You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to
love the sinner (content).

No.

>You're saying that if you hate the sin (intrusive ads), you're not allowed to
_support_ the sinner (content provider) _by consuming content on their
platform_.

Yes. I mean, you’re allowed to do whatever you want, but the alternative is
simple hypocrisy if you try and paint it as something noble meant to change
how they do business.

The funny thing is I don’t think Adblock in itself is hypocritical. It’s just
when you add in the virtue signaling and “we’re just trying to make YouTube a
better mousetrap!” that my eyes start to roll back into my head and the irony
hits a little too hard...

------
vzaliva
Not only video ads. They also show regular ads to paid subscribers. If you
have an ad blocker they detect it and show a request to disable it! I was
pissed off because I am paid subscriber (for many years). So, I emailed them
about that and they responded that their business model is based on both ad
and subscription revenue.

~~~
thibautg
This is why I cancelled my subscription. After a 20-minutes retention chat
with a person/bot.

------
justinph
Some players adhere to the prefers-reduced-motion a11y setting and won't
autoplay with that.

[https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-
motion/](https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/)

Depends on the implementation of the ads and the network they're coming from.
This presently only works in Safari and Firefox nightlies.

------
bambax
Disabling JavaScript on the NYT website completely bypasses the paywall and
has few ill effects except preventing images to load (which is an acceptable
trade-off).

------
bonestamp2
Thanks for the heads up! I was literally just thinking I miss the sunday times
and was going to get the sunday paper delivered and use the online
subscription throughout the week.

------
Crontab
It is sad to me that advertising has turned every browser technology available
into something annoying. This has been going long since the introduction of
the blink tag.

------
AzzieElbab
And nyt print edition still contains advertising...

------
village-idiot
This is why I aggressively block ads in my household. There are basically no
good actors in the ad space, and I’d prefer they all go away.

------
pacifika
Not sure what you expect? This is the internet

~~~
yummybear
I think it’s reasonable, and normal to expect a reduced add experience or no
ads when you’re a paid subscriber.

------
sigfubar
Just install an ad blocker and be merry. If this particular nastiness isn’t
caught by one of the major ad blockers, simply plug the device into Charles
Proxy and capture the ad requests being made, and submit an enhancement to the
ad block list.

Ezpz.

Public indignation accomplishes nothing. Direct action leads to results.

~~~
stevula
That’s great if you’re on the web, but as far as I know there’s no way to
block on ads on a native iOS app.

~~~
iuwhagtr
You really don't need an app to read a newspaper.

~~~
selectodude
I use the app "safari" to block ads on the app "nytimes.com" and it works
perfectly.

