News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How “engagement” made the web a less engaging place by gipp on Friday March 31, 2017 @01:53PM (#14006251)
This is a major reason, though certainly not the only reason, that the NYT has moved toward a primarily subscription-based business model for their online offerings. It's actually been very successful to date, and I think it's a good move for resisting the urge of clickbait. (https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/)
Re:How “engagement” made the web a less engaging place by gozur88 on Friday March 31, 2017 @05:17PM (#14008352)
They don't really have a choice. I don't think you can simultaneously offer a quality product and still compete for advertising dollars with the Buzzfeeds of the world. The Times had a huge advantage in that they had a solid pre-internet brand. I wonder if it's even possible to start a company like that today without sinking hundreds of millions into getting it off the ground.
Re:How “engagement” made the web a less engaging place by arghimonmobile0 on Friday March 31, 2017 @08:03PM (#14009500)
In this space, I'm very curious to see how the English version (just launched) of decorrespondent.nl will fare. This is a Dutch-language high quality news platform started only about 3 years ago, and the model is yearly paid subscription. I think this would be an example of what you're referring to. To be fair though, the editor who started it came from a well-respected traditional media newspaper.
Re:How “engagement” made the web a less engaging place by padthai on Saturday April 01, 2017 @04:18AM (#14011140)
I think it is almost impossible for a newspaper but I see successful magazines out there. They put part (or none) of their content online and sell the complete physical version.

As an example, in Spain, Jot Down. Web: http://www.jotdown.es/ and store: http://www.jotdown.es/store