undefined | Better HN

0 pointstsimionescu2y ago0 comments

I don't think there has ever been a successful media organization that relied on subscription revenue, except for very specialized areas (business press, science, hobby).

In general, the costs of running a journalistic organization (one which discovers news for itself, not just repackaging news from other media) far outweigh what people are willing to pay for this. Remember that newspapers, even in the times before radio was widespread, were always dirt cheap.

Not to mention, there is a problem of competition. Facts can't be copyrighted, so nothing can stop me from buying a subscription to NYT and reporting everything they write, in my own words, charging much less if I want to. Sure, I don't have their reputation, but if their subscription were high enough to cover their costs alone, plenty of people would chose to trust me.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

pyrale2y ago

> except for very specialized areas [...] science

For that specific example, science publications don't create any content, nor do they have paid staff curating collected content. That kind of helps their bottom line.

These organizations are closer in their model to Google than they are to news organizations (ie they gatekeep a specific type of resource that content producers need).

From what little I know from business press, in my business area they also get a significant share of their content for free, although it is much less predatory than science publications.

jen202y ago

> Remember that newspapers, even in the times before radio was widespread, were always dirt cheap.

Not anymore - I used to buy the New York Post to read in a bar from time to time, and it was 25 cents (and arguably overpriced then). It’s how 1-1.50USD depending on day, if you can even find a copy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse