I wrote the following in 2015:<p>"...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, <i>the exact same people advertisers look to target</i>. 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, <i>selling ads, it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content</i>."<p>Previous HN discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803</a>
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 <i>and</i> $X/month to the Washington Post <i>and</i> $X/month to the Wall Street Journal <i>and</i> $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.<p>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.
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 <i>you</i>, because my experience just improved.
Contrast with the very small world of cash flow positive paid subscription sites like The Information.<p>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.<p>> 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.”<p>> 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.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500</a>
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.
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.
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.<p>This is not, and never has been true.
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.
Some players adhere to the prefers-reduced-motion a11y setting and won't autoplay with that.<p><a href="https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/" rel="nofollow">https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/</a><p>Depends on the implementation of the ads and the network they're coming from. This presently only works in Safari and Firefox nightlies.
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).
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.
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.
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.<p>Ezpz.<p>Public indignation accomplishes nothing. Direct action leads to results.