I kinda agree with them. I'm not in the US and I don't normally pay for news but I recently signed up to the guardian because they had a promotion.
But they started spamming my mailbox immediately with stupid stuff like cooking apps. And they ask all sorts of stuff about my interests. I don't want any of that. But once they know who I am it opens the door to their marketeers to try and extract more money from me.
It's better if I visit the site not logged in with all adblockers active. I do have to agree to tracking then but the adblocker blocks most of that.
It's just weird that I have a better experience if I don't pay than if I do. And it's really expensive, the promotional thing is 6€, and that's a limited time only, the normal price is 12€. I don't read it that much, I just like their take on things sometimes. I read the front page a couple times a week maybe. And sometimes open up an article.
I'll probably cancel when the 6€ thing stops. To be honest I hate reading the news these days anyway. I'd rather not keep up.
> It's just weird that I have a better experience if I don't pay than if I do.
not if you look from the POV of an advertiser.
If you don't pay, chances are you would not have money to spend on goods being advertised. But if you are rich enough to afford to be a subscriber, chances are you'd be rich enough to buy those goods being advertised!
Therefore, a subscriber is a much more valuable advertising target, which means the guardian can sell you for a higher price than a free user. Given limited real-estate and resources, they'd target a higher value person than a low value person to send the spam.
I pay a few bucks for NYT but it’s mostly for the games. I’d be more willing to pay for a good news source if they’d actually turn ads off for me. But no.
Often it is just a waste of money. If people could pay money and know they will get better news than from free sources, maybe they would. But currently you can pay money on multiple different paid news sources and still receive all of the same inaccurate garbage and marketing as the free sources.
I am not American. I pay for news, specifically business news. I subscribe to US, UK and Indian news websites.
Both the US and UK feel free to show me ads even when I've paid a bomb in terms of subscription costs. Not subtle ads of their own products! Top banner ads, middle-of-page scrolling ads, and the like, of whichever fancy watch or lifestyle destination has paid the most money to them. And then they have the gall to write opinion pieces on how ad-based AI and streaming channels are the bane of the world. Plus they feel free to subscribe me to a bunch of their newsletters and podcasts which I have to manually unsubscribe from. One of them actually pedals courses on how to write good.
The Indian news sites have no barrier on what is a paid piece and what is actually news. Promoted pieces occupy the same slots as paid ones. I've seen blatant advertisements masquerading as actual reporting.
I understand that news has been gutted by tech. But there is a need to be honest to a paying customer; if not, they deserve whatever has come to them.
Seeing news reports on things that you yourself have personally witnessed, and seeing how distorted the reports are compared to what you saw yourself — it will radicalize you. I not only don’t want to pay for the “news”, I want to burn down most of the news establishments, and then make sure that no more than 5g of the ash is ever in one place at a time, on the off chance they try to pull a T1000 and recombine.
There is indeed a lot of really good free news, but you just know the free content consumers are getting their news from schizophrenic conspiracy theorists on social media.
Basically, people need to evaluate news as a utility, not a service or something that will just reach them. Definitely not entertainment. That means you need to evaluate the accuracy, and vote with your wallet. Any free, or publicly available option, will be compermised, because they're not aligned with your interests.
I kinda agree with them. I'm not in the US and I don't normally pay for news but I recently signed up to the guardian because they had a promotion.
But they started spamming my mailbox immediately with stupid stuff like cooking apps. And they ask all sorts of stuff about my interests. I don't want any of that. But once they know who I am it opens the door to their marketeers to try and extract more money from me.
It's better if I visit the site not logged in with all adblockers active. I do have to agree to tracking then but the adblocker blocks most of that.
It's just weird that I have a better experience if I don't pay than if I do. And it's really expensive, the promotional thing is 6€, and that's a limited time only, the normal price is 12€. I don't read it that much, I just like their take on things sometimes. I read the front page a couple times a week maybe. And sometimes open up an article.
I'll probably cancel when the 6€ thing stops. To be honest I hate reading the news these days anyway. I'd rather not keep up.
> It's just weird that I have a better experience if I don't pay than if I do.
not if you look from the POV of an advertiser.
If you don't pay, chances are you would not have money to spend on goods being advertised. But if you are rich enough to afford to be a subscriber, chances are you'd be rich enough to buy those goods being advertised!
Therefore, a subscriber is a much more valuable advertising target, which means the guardian can sell you for a higher price than a free user. Given limited real-estate and resources, they'd target a higher value person than a low value person to send the spam.
This is something I always assumed but thought was cynical. But it's true. Willing to pay for no ads? High value ad target.
Understood but I hate ads a lot more than I care about the sustainability of websites I use so that tends to disincentivise me from subscribing.
The news isn’t the product being sold — it’s actually the subscriber.
I pay a few bucks for NYT but it’s mostly for the games. I’d be more willing to pay for a good news source if they’d actually turn ads off for me. But no.
Often it is just a waste of money. If people could pay money and know they will get better news than from free sources, maybe they would. But currently you can pay money on multiple different paid news sources and still receive all of the same inaccurate garbage and marketing as the free sources.
If you are going to be the product, why pay for the product ?
I am not American. I pay for news, specifically business news. I subscribe to US, UK and Indian news websites.
Both the US and UK feel free to show me ads even when I've paid a bomb in terms of subscription costs. Not subtle ads of their own products! Top banner ads, middle-of-page scrolling ads, and the like, of whichever fancy watch or lifestyle destination has paid the most money to them. And then they have the gall to write opinion pieces on how ad-based AI and streaming channels are the bane of the world. Plus they feel free to subscribe me to a bunch of their newsletters and podcasts which I have to manually unsubscribe from. One of them actually pedals courses on how to write good.
The Indian news sites have no barrier on what is a paid piece and what is actually news. Promoted pieces occupy the same slots as paid ones. I've seen blatant advertisements masquerading as actual reporting.
I understand that news has been gutted by tech. But there is a need to be honest to a paying customer; if not, they deserve whatever has come to them.
Paid news is a mostly no longer trusted in the US.
Based on interviews with US based teachers, "soon" Americans won't care for news altogether because they cannot read.
Teachers don't know what to do while ChatGPT took over universities.
Pay licence fee, read BBC news
Seeing news reports on things that you yourself have personally witnessed, and seeing how distorted the reports are compared to what you saw yourself — it will radicalize you. I not only don’t want to pay for the “news”, I want to burn down most of the news establishments, and then make sure that no more than 5g of the ash is ever in one place at a time, on the off chance they try to pull a T1000 and recombine.
There is indeed a lot of really good free news, but you just know the free content consumers are getting their news from schizophrenic conspiracy theorists on social media.
Basically, people need to evaluate news as a utility, not a service or something that will just reach them. Definitely not entertainment. That means you need to evaluate the accuracy, and vote with your wallet. Any free, or publicly available option, will be compermised, because they're not aligned with your interests.