“Our continued existence as a publication relies on people being able to freely access information, and there’s a burgeoning movement to actually make people aware of something they’ve been too arsed to bother with for decades. Wrote an artic-”
It’s not perfect, no, but what are they supposed to do to keep the lights on? Double down on ads giving everyone malware, that everyone should be blocking anyway?
…That being said, we have every right to try and bypass the paywall too, heh.
They should be a little bit discerning about what they paywall. It won’t kill them make public interest stories of serious value free as a public service.
…Those “14 year olds” make money with ads, if not by being straight-up product shills. And social media takes most of the cut.
Also, that’s quite different than sustaining a whole journalism business. There is of course social media centric journalism, and Wired does plenty of that too.
Social media isn’t a sustainable model. Yes, there are people that have success in that model, but those people have to sacrifice a lot, especially in the content quality, to acheive that success. Many media companies have already tried it, but the content they produce ends up dissolving into mostly clickbait, because they would fail otherwise.
Thank you.
“Our continued existence as a publication relies on people being able to freely access information, and there’s a burgeoning movement to actually make people aware of something they’ve been too arsed to bother with for decades. Wrote an artic-”
“Paywall it.”
“On it, boss.”
It’s not perfect, no, but what are they supposed to do to keep the lights on? Double down on ads giving everyone malware, that everyone should be blocking anyway?
…That being said, we have every right to try and bypass the paywall too, heh.
They should be a little bit discerning about what they paywall. It won’t kill them make public interest stories of serious value free as a public service.
This is true.
Some sites do this already. Wired may do it; not sure, though you are right in that advocacy posts should make the cut.
maybe they should take a class from the 14 yr old influencers keeping the lights on with socials, follows and clicks.
…Those “14 year olds” make money with ads, if not by being straight-up product shills. And social media takes most of the cut.
Also, that’s quite different than sustaining a whole journalism business. There is of course social media centric journalism, and Wired does plenty of that too.
Social media isn’t a sustainable model. Yes, there are people that have success in that model, but those people have to sacrifice a lot, especially in the content quality, to acheive that success. Many media companies have already tried it, but the content they produce ends up dissolving into mostly clickbait, because they would fail otherwise.
Via sponsor spots and ad revenue?