News Media Monetization

News sites aren't just providing information: they're trading reporting for ad impressions.

I know, my first question was a joke; you're causing clickbaity headlines and inline ads by bypassing their paywall. You still haven't explained why it was worth your time to manually edit the frontend in Inspector when the article is such poor quality it's not worth paying for.Google and Facebook ate the ad market. It doesn't matter if you win Pulitzer prizes or not, you need another source of revenue.There's plenty of profitable paywall models, Wired, NYT, Econom

I'm thinking more of media sites that rely on ad dollars to pay the bills. Unless they have a direct subscription option or other way to pay for the service, you're eating into their bottom line. The real world analog would be newspapers and the ads they run.

Counterpoint: high quality journalism must be well funded, and funding based on advertising and 'clickbait' undermines quality. So paywalls it is.

May be it's a good thing for the news/media industry. Why rely on flimsy ads. If your news contents are credible and important to users they'll subscribe to it a la Netflix or HBO Go.

As a developer who works for one of these news publishers you have little sympathy for, what I can tell you is that:1) Most people don't want to pay for news. Even $1/year is too high.2) Ad CPMs are low—especially on iOS thanks to Apple's ATT—so we need more ads to make the same amount of revenue.3) "SEO clickbait" (especially Taboola) helps keep the lights on. Click at your own peril.4) If governments pay news outlets, we're trading one captured entity

I'm really excited to see Blendle opening their doors to the English speaking market.Journalism funded by advertising contains several seemingly-unpatchable incentive structures... (a) the need to promote the advertising to you, breaking the concentration you need to read the article... (b) the fact that getting you far enough to see the adverts is enough to earn revenue so the content quality can be a secondary priority... (c) the fact that some sites go as far as mixing journalist-writ

NYT and the Economist ( the first you mentioned) are both websites that give content here away for free ( for ads), the others are probably niche related to your interests from fans.I don't have cable also and OutBrain / Taboola really suck. Don't visit buzzfeed and don't pay currently for articles. Because i pay them with ads.I'd like to see numbers of how much people actually pay for content, before i believe that "the old way" works on the web 15 years

I'm currently contracting for a rather large news outlet and I had a talk with the VP of Engineering about why every media outlet is like this and he shed some light on me.The print edition is losing money for them and business decided to start giving them away for free to increase brand awareness.The paywalled stuff is making them modest revenue, definitely not enough to make a living for now but they're still experimenting with the model.The ads and user tracking is where th

I'm not sure what you expect them to learn.Only use "cleaner" ads ? It will pay less, ads don't pay much any more, you need the big, splashy, if-possible-exclusive-and-targeted ads to get money now.Offer subscriptions ? They already do that, and they publish quality original content, so it's not the case of journal-X publishing the same press release as everyone and complaining that people don't subscribe.At this point, they can only do two things with peop