It amuses me that people accuse The New York Times of producing content “just for clicks.” Does no one realize their business model changed years ago and they’re likely the largest subscription news pub in the world? Weren’t subscriptions supposed to combat clickbait? A paradox.
-
I don't think chasing clicks is wrong. But what I think you're saying is "subscriptions means no clickbait." That's not really true. Outrage drives sub revenue. Not saying it's right or wrong. But crazy headlines/articles can 100% drive revenue.
For example: many sub driven companies give writers bonuses on the NPS of their articles as well as bonus based on how many new subs their work brought in. The Athletic and I think The information do this (they said so at a conference). Often, the scandal articles score best.
-
-
This is one reason why the Trump Bump existed: https://digiday.com/media/trump-bump-subscriptions-wanes-publishers/ ….
-
I actually don’t think subscriptions mean no clickbait. But I’ve seen so many people say that ads are what make “chasing clicks” necessary and a subscription relationship would save that. But it’s factually untrue. We’re all fighting for reader attention.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.