There are a few newspapers I’d like to subscribe to but am always surprised by the cost. Partly because I’ve been trained by Spotify and Netflix that ~£10 pm for something I use a lot represents good value for money.
By contrast most newspaper subscriptions are over £30 pm. This seem to be based on the assumption that those taking out a digital subscription buy the physical paper every day, rather than somebody like me who buys one a couple of times a week.
I’d be happy paying £10 pm for a couple of newspaper subs, or £5 a month for a subscription that gave you access to 20 articles, but paying 3-5 times the cost of a Netflix or Spotify sub always feels slightly steep to me considering usage.
I’m sure the newspapers have done a tonne of modelling and worked out that it’s better for them to have fewer customers playing £30+ a month than more paying £10pm.
I mostly just dislike following a link that’s been shared on Twitter only to be hit by a paywall the person sharing the article didn’t know about. I think it’s slightly devious that newspapers show the content in search engine listings and Twitter cards but hide it from readers.
Interestingly this thread was sparked by reading a really good article in the FT this weekend and wanting to share it, but not being able to. Would be great if print articles came with some sort of short URL you could share.
When I’ve done competitor analysis in the past I’ve always tried to include everybody who is competing for the customers mindshare rather than who is simply competing in the same sector.
For instance when looking at a movie subscription service I also included music subscription, TV streaming, newspapers, magazines and book services like audible. Arguably also mobile phone subscription.
Because folks aren’t typically comparing 3 different newspapers or 5 different streaming services. Instead they are looking at all the things they subscribe to and thinking “if I give £30 a month to this company, what am I potentially giving up as a result”
I think one of the big problems with newspapers is that they’ve anchored the price of online news at free, which makes it much harder to convince people that taking out a subscription for something they may only read a couple of articles from a day is worth 3-5x Netflix.
Obviously the large streaming companies have been able to subsidise costs through VC funding in return for massive growth, and are now all increasing sub costs to start making more money, something newspapers are unable to do.
Although on saying that a lot of national newspapers like The Guardian have made a big push to become international of late, in order to chase similar scale.
It’s also worth noting that a lot of newspapers rely on subscriber generosity in order to distribute their content for free. So a percentage of the subscriber fee has more akin to sponsoring a charity than paying for a streaming subscription.
And by that I mean the utility they provide subscribers isn’t only access to content, but also the feeling that they are contributing to something bigger and more important.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At the turn of the 20th century, the UK government decided that they couldn’t see a path forward for fixed wing aircraft and invested their attention into lighter than air vehicles instead.
In this super interesting article, @benedictevans talks about how a lot of early innovations are dismissed as experiments or toys. Something competitors do with much regularity, clouded by their “superior” understanding of the market.
The canonical version of this is Kodak, who helped pioneer the digital camera, but failed to see a world where digital would overtake analog.
Every degree course I see feels like it was designed in the early 00s when UX was trending and Web Design was still a thing, while the lecturers seem more interested in pursuing funding and obscure areas of research, than teaching useful, practical skills.
I regularly see managers complain about the performance of certain individuals who then go on to be outstanding performers at their next job. I’ve come to the realisations that the problem generally lies with the manager rather than the person being managed.
It’s true that many of these individuals have a tendency to coast. Doing what they’ve been asked to do, and no more. I used to think that the problem was with the individual for being unmotivated, and I think that is part of the story.
However a good manager should provide structure and guidance for these sort of individuals as they often don’t understand what’s expected. To coach, mentor, support and challenge them into doing their best work possible. Instead they often act like absentee landlords.
I’ve been enjoying reading this book about the contemporary art market. As a result, here are my predictions about NFTs.
We’re currently in a super early technology driven gold rush, during which time a lot of mediocre NFT art will be created and sold for sold for seemingly random prices.
Some early NFTs with historic significance will continue to hold their value. Some new NFT artists will appear, but most of the art created during this phase will end up worthless.
The hardest thing in tech isn’t knowing the right thing to do. It’s figuring out how to get people to do it (and follow through with conviction)
Doing the right thing usually means doing something different to what you’re currently doing. This involves both risk and effort on the part of others, for often limited personal reward.
I see so many designers take roles in well established teams, only to leave 18 months later because they were unable to affect any meaningful change.
They were somehow surprised that joining an established product team with established processes and an established backlog of work, somehow took the creativity and joy out of the role.
Designers, if you truly want to make an impact, consider joining a start-up as their Founding Designer, before the processes have ossified. It'll be scrappy, it'll be messy and you'll have plenty of channeling conversations with the founders. But the potential is much larger.