Thread by @andybudd

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.