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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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