I've been on the internet for a long, long time.
Via local Bulletin Board Systems, I started reading USENET newsgroups — mostly Star Trek and comic book and computer game stuff — during college in the late 1980s. I got sucked into the world of MUDs. Soon after graduating, I heard about this new thing called the World Wide Web, so I installed Mosaic on my Macintosh SE.
Before long, I taught myself HTML and built my first website. Eventually, in 1997, I started my first blog — back before blog was even a word!
I was drawn to the web (and the internet) in part because it seemed so egalitarian. Anyone could start a website about anything, and as long as they produced great stuff and shared it, people would read. I also liked the fact that almost everything was free. It didn't cost anything (besides your $19.95 monthly dial-up service) to access any of this information. The early web was a de facto sharing economy.
Best of all? The web was a wide open space, a blank slate, a platform free from dominance by mainstream media. Little people like me could have a voice.
None of this lasted long.
The Monetization of the Web
Soon, banner ads came along. I hated banner ads when they first appeared. “My site will never have banner ads,” I told my friends. (This was my first real lesson that you should never say never. My friends have been giving me grief about this for more than fifteen years!)
In 1998, Google arrived and changed everything. Until that point, web search was a miserable experience. It wasn't very good and it was overly monetized. Google was the opposite. It was amazing and had no monetization at all.
Hahahahahahahaha. How things have changed. Today, Google is all about ads. And using it is more and more a miserable experience. Look at this mess:
How long until Google has transformed itself into AltaVista?
In time, the mainstream media realized that the web wasn't going anywhere. By the early 2000s, they were treating it as an important part of their operations. By the early 2010s, the web had become the most important part of most media companies' platforms. And if it hadn't, those companies would soon be dead.
Meanwhile, two parallel (but related) trends developed.
- First, there was the rise of “software as a service” (Saas). In the olden days — 1995, say — when you wanted a computer program, you went down to Circuit City and bought it. You paid for it once and you owned it forever. As “web apps” became a thing, companies shifted from one-time payments to a subscription model. Today, even big companies like Microsoft and Adobe have adopted the practice of continually charging for their products. (And if they don't use a subscription model, they often “sunset” their software, which is essentially the same damn thing.)
- Second, forward-thinking sites and companies learned there was money to be made by disrupting existing business models. Netflix is a great example. Founded in 1997, this company has single-handedly destroyed multiple industries, most notably retail video. And, eventually, Netflix began to disrupt the monolithic television industry itself! Initially, this was beneficial to consumers. Now, in 2019, it's become apparent that oops, nope it's not. (See also.)
Twenty-five years ago, when the web was young, it was all about free. Anyone who could afford a computer and a $19.95/month dial-up connection was free to create and publish whatever they wanted — and free to consume what other people had created. It was like some sort of digital utopia.
Death by a Thousand Cuts
Today, the web is most decidedly not free. And it's getting less free with every passing month. Let's be honest: More and more, life online is expensive. It's like death by a thousand cuts.
This morning as I was pulling together the latest edition of the GRS Insider — this site's weekly email — I experienced the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. And that prompted this article. (And delayed the newsletter haha.)
- First, I tried to read a New York Times article: “Health facts aren't enough. Should persuasion become a priority?” But I couldn't. I've already read one article from the NYT this month: “D.I.Y. Private Equity Is Luring Small Investors”. It used to be that the NYT was free. Then they instituted a limit on article consumption unless you subscribed, but it was a limit I could live with (something like ten articles per month). Besides, I could bypass the paywall with my browser's incognito mode. Then they got wise to incognito mode, which is fair enough. Now, apparently, you get one free article per month.
- Next, I wanted to read this article: “Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class”. I mean, I really want to read that article. But I can't. It's at The Wall Street Journal and the WSJ has been locked behind a paywall for years.
Crashing into paywalls is a daily occurence now. No — it's an hourly occurrence. I follow a promising link and bam I'm brought up short because I have to pay to access the article. This happens at newspapers, magazines, and even internet-only sites. It makes me grateful for the publications that produce terrific content and still provide it for free. (One example? I find that I'm frequently drawn to articles at The Atlantic. They provide top-notch quality without asking for payment. But for how long?)
Meanwhile, the subscription software model is starting to take its toll too. I completely understand that some apps and services require subscriptions in order to function properly. I pay a monthly fee to have Get Rich Slowly hosted on a webserver. That makes sense.
- It does not make sense to me that some of the tools we use to build Get Rich Slowly require monthly (or yearly) subscriptions. There's no ongoing maintenance. There's no draw on the vendor's resources.
- It does not make sense to me that my favorite weather app for the iPhone requires an annual subscription. In fact, it's insane. (Yet I still pay it.)
- It does not make sense to my that Pzizz, a sleep tool that I've used for over a decade, moved from standalone pricing to subscription pricing. (And hey, Pzizz people, how many times do I have to pay for your product before you give me lifetime access? Because I've paid three or four times already.)
Generally speaking, SaaS and subscription plans aren't necessary — they're just profitable for the companies that use them. And as long as we keep paying, they'll stick to the model.
All Good Things Must Come to an End
The “cut” that's really going to mess with people's minds? The upcoming high price of television.
When Netflix and Hulu and similar companies came along, they offered low-cost alternatives to cable. Cord cutting became an act of frugality. I ditched cable television in 2007 and have never looked back. Until now.
Now, big media companies have recognized that they too can get on the act. They too can inflict one of the thousand cuts.
- CBS was quick on the draw. Want to watch the latest Star Trek shows? No Netflix for you! You have to pay $10 per month for CBS All Access — or $6 per month if you're willing to put up with commercials.
- Disney is a heavy hitter and they want to get in on the act. Disney+ — coming November 12th — will cost $8 per month. Want to watch the latest Marvel and Star Wars shows? Want to watch Disney and Pixar movies? This is your only option.
- By far, the most popular show on Netflix is NBC's The Office, which accounts for a mind-boggling 7% of all Netflix viewing in the U.S. NBC knows a golden goose when it sees one. When its current deal with Netflix expires, it's yanking The Office and using it as a tent pole to launch its own subscription service.
Meanwhile, Netflix and Hulu and Amazon all offer their own original programming. (At least the latter is free for folks who pay for Prime, which is nearly one-third of the United States. Holy shit!) Apple will soon get in on the game and they're using big names to draw viewers: Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, and more.
Streaming used to be a cheaper alternative to cable television. As Consumer Reports notes, these days it's a toss-up. And soon, streaming is likely to be the more expensive option.
Note: The one huge advantage to this proliferation of options? Users can pick and choose which content they subscribe to. For years (or decades), folks had been asking for a la carte pricing for cable channels. Well, I guess now we have it.
No Free Lunch
To provide supporting evidence for this article, I started to make a list of all of the software subscriptions I have, my software that's being “sunsetted” and needs to be upgraded (Quickbooks 2016 just notified me yesterday that it's no longer supported), the most common paywalls I encounter, and the television-related payments I make. I gave up. It's a doable thing, but it'd take too much time right now. It's a project for another day.
I know I sound like a cranky old man (again!), but I've had enough. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore! Except that I probably am.
“Don't you expect to pay for services?” Kim asked me as I bitched to her this morning. “How does anybody run a business if it's free? In your mind, their business model should be to not charge the customer?”
Okay, fair point. I don't want to be taken for a choosing beggar.
As somebody who runs a website himself and knows how much it costs (in terms of time and money) just to maintain my tiny corner of the web, I absolutely do not begrudge anyone the desire to make money.
And, in fact, my biggest challenge since repurchasing Get Rich Slowly two years ago has been balancing my desire to provide excellent information without destroying the user experience with monetization. It's a delicate balance, one that I'm not sure I'm achieving. (But hey, I'm working on it!)
My frustration is that there are just so many companies extracting a pound of flesh from me. It's too much.
Yes, I realize most (of not all) of these expenses are voluntary. Yes, I realize this is capitalism in action. Yes, I realize there are often free (or cheaper) options. Yes, I realize we can't reset the internet to 1995. Believe me: I've been thinking about this issue for years now. I understand all of this stuff. But I don't like it.
In the end, my solution recently has been to KonMari my digital life. I've removed most of the apps from my iPhone and iPad, opting to cut those with subscription fees first. When possible, choose software with a one-time fee instead of an ongoing subscription. I try to steer clear of sites with paywalls. I killed Hulu. (But then Kim promptly joined.) Even though I love Star Trek and the Marvel Universe, I refuse to pay for CBS All Access and Disney+. I never will.
But then, I was never going to have banner ads on my website either, was I?
Author: J.D. Roth
In 2006, J.D. founded Get Rich Slowly to document his quest to get out of debt. Over time, he learned how to save and how to invest. Today, he's managed to reach early retirement! He wants to help you master your money — and your life. No scams. No gimmicks. Just smart money advice to help you reach your goals.
This is where doing our best to not view optional things as required things is useful.
Yes, that’s true. But even non-optional things are moving to subscription models. While it hurts much less to pay for these subscriptions, they can still be frustrating — especially when there’s no need for a subscription model. Again, I’ll point to some of the software we use to produce Get Rich Slowly. Or my accounting software. Etcetera.
Definitely. We are stuck with this new model in so many ways. I’m even questioning those bigger things for myself. For example, we subscribe to have Microsoft Office. Because we use Excel like crazy instead of Quicken or other money management tools. However, there are other options.
Switch to using monetarily free tools and give up some of the capabilities we have now in Excel
Switch to using pencil and graph paper
I’m in no way suggesting that switching to pencil and graph paper is a logical way to go for just about anybody. However…sometimes seeing the alternatives is a good way to see the value in what we pay for.
The key is to always remember what is really needed. And to keep questioning things we still think are really needed. And to acknowledge that businesses will always figure out ways to make money. The internet makes it more efficient for everything; from saving money to getting bilked.
JD…what software would you consider to be ‘non-optioal’?
I expect an overcorrection. The Office is a huge amount of the traffic on Netflix, but how many of those viewers are going to subscribe to NBC’s service just for that? I expect the fragmenting of the landscape will quickly show that it’s not quite what they expect.
With regard to newpapers, I think they need to figure out a new model. Once upon a time there were news stands all over. That was because relatively few people subscribed to a specific newspaper. But they might see something interesting that made them pay for a single day. I might read 3-5 articles per month at WSJ. That isn’t enough to justify a subscription. It isn’t that I don’t want to pay for their content, it is that I don’t utilize the content enough to pay for a subscription. Maybe we should start a virtual news stand. We can negotiate with each of the largest publishers for daily type access.
I actually subscribed to Apple News+ recently precisely for the kind of thing you’re describing. I hated it. The experience was awful. It’s lousy software. Plus, it turns out that while you’re supposed to get all this great free content with Apple News+, you actually have to pay to subscribe to the best stuff. What’s the point? I killed the free preview after a day and uninstalled the software from all of my devices haha.
Poor execution, but not a bad concept. For it to work they can’t hide their best stuff.
In Canada, where I live, I am able to access something called Press Reader through my library – for free – which gives me digital access to hundreds of newspapers and magazines. It’s not perfect, but it works well most of the time and is basically the virtual news stand model mentioned above. Might be worth checking out your local library to see if it offers the same resource.
We have a similar thing in Australia. For our local library it’s delivered via ZINIO.
I think the public library is being over-looked as a resource in another way. The WSJ and NYT are no doubt available there and you can access anything you want to read there.
Newspapers charging a monthly subscription makes sense. I want reporters to be paid to do good work and be free of advertiser influence. They have to be paid consistency to do so.
But Adobe and Microsoft going to a monthly fee is just gouging us and that’s nonsensical – they don’t provide any ongoing services, it’s a single product or a bloated package of the one product I need and ten others I don’t want. Ugh. I knew we were headed here with the streaming services though. There was no way those companies wouldn’t find a way to make money off cord-cutters. It wouldn’t be a big deal, they are offering new content, if it weren’t so overpriced as well.
I for one am only working my way through The Office right now because I had been picking away at it and actually wanted to finish it. I am not a type of viewer who regularly re-watches shows. On Netflix alone, I can’t keep up with how quickly I add interesting looking shows to my list. And that doesn’t count the ones that we watch as a couple on my husband’s profile.
I used to play MUDs, too. Back in the day when computer games were text only…
Thanks to those of you who pointed out my stupid, stupid math error. I’ve removed it and your comments, but I do appreciate the help. Seriously.
Right now I subscribe to Hulu Live and the Starz channel. This essentially duplicates a standard cable package for a fraction of the price. I’m now paying $60 a month instead of $160. Even with these changes that are coming, I suspect it’ll take a while before streaming reaches the heights of what I was paying for cable.
I have noticed some of my favorite bloggers and vloggers now charge for their best writing. They’ll publish great free material, then tell you if you really want the secret sauce you need to pay for a subscription or join Patreon or whatever. Of course, there’s usually no secret sauce, but it’s too bad they can’t just make their money with ads on their website, because I’m not really a joiner.
The big secret to affordable streaming is to not subscribe to all the services at the same time. Subscribe to Netflix for one month, watch all Netflix shows. Next month subscribe to Hulu, watch all Hulu shows. Repeat for CBS, Disney, HBO, etc. Rotate through all of them one month at a time. Everyone seems to overlook how easy it is to cancel and re-activate later.
Good idea Dave. I will give that a try. thanks
That’s what they’re banking on. Last year I bought a JBL speaker designed to work real well with Chromecast Audio (…back when that was supported) and it came with one- to six-month trials for various streaming services — Spotify, YouTube Music, etc. Good thing I placed calendar reminders to cancel at the end of the trial periods or I’d still be paying for them now. I shudder to think how many folks just let it keep going and forget to even use the service!
It’s easy for now. Sooner or later if enough people do it, they will make it less easy. Or at least the less scrupulous services will.
I signed up for a four week trial to a digital newspaper, and only when the four weeks was almost up did I realize I had to call in and wait on hold to cancel.
If you dig deep enough into the web, most everything eventually gets revealed. For free.
Here’s your free WSJ link:
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/2019080111078/families-go-deep-in-debt-to-stay-in-the-middle-2
Realistically, the shows on Netflix have been sucking lately. Ditto for Hulu. I may take a chance and just get Disney. I like G quality films. Most of the stuff on the Apple News is free. You have to dig deeper. Most of those articles come from magazines you can read for free, online, from your local library. Your tax dollars pay for it. Including the NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. Duh.
I guess when you have money, you stop thinking like a poor person, and fail to find the true, free treasures in this life.
Cars? It’s about cars? Sigh. Why do people spend so much money on cars?
It boils down to vanity.
I think your complaints are valid. When everything started switching to a subscription model it really frustrated me. Most software providers offer something that provides little value beyond the initial platform itself yet we are stuck paying recurring fees for minimal to no updates. They all do that as it creates predictable revenue. Its a lot easier to explain to wall street how many users you have and your churn then it is to have the lumpy sales cycle.
The one gripe I have is the “this is capitalism” comment. You are correct this is capitalism in action, but your article and the consumer response to these services is also capitalism in action. People think you are anti-capitalistic if you complain about a company making money in a certain manner and that is just not correct. If everyone is in line with your complaints, voice their opinions as well and no longer buy the product then the companies will have to adapt. I am not saying that will happen here, but your complaint is also part of capitalism.
Excellent point about capitalism
Excellent point! And what about the opportunities this presents!? If you’re an unknown content creator, you can more easily compete when the big guys increase their prices all at once.
When Star Trek’s new material gets stupidly expensive (let alone just lazy writing in this latest incarnation as compared to TNG and the original’s awesomeness), DUST (on Youtube) gets a lot more appealing.
Financial articles get annoying/expensive to follow? In steps GRS to fill the void!
I disagree on the weather app. I don’t know how they do it in the us, but over here there are various weather data providers, distinguished by the quality of their forecasts, the depth of their data, and so on. A general forecast for a day and a largish region will be less expensive than a specific one for a smaller one.
Ah. I hadn’t considered this. And this is an app that provides good, specific, local weather info. So, if they’re paying to subscribe to data sources, I can see passing that on to users.
In the U.S. just go to weather.gov and type your zip code.
JD,
You can read the article “families go deep into debt to stay in middle class” here
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/families-go-deep-into-debt-to-stay-in-the-middle-class/ar-AAFbEHE
Thank you, Kris! (And thanks to the three folks who actually emailed the piece to me haha.)
So painfully true. I refuse to upgrade my YNAB software because I hate the way they switched from buy-it-once to subscription. Especially after proudly proclaiming they would never be one of those companies. Grrr.
Yea, dito on the YNAB change in business model. I’m so disappointed in them.
I joined them in the subscription era but fortunately locked in before they increased prices.
I still get a good value from them so I’m keeping them for now, but nothing prevents you from doing a DIY version on a spreadsheet.
All it is, it’s the envelope system, in virtual envelopes. It’s not rocket science. You could even do it on a piece of paper.
What you pay for with the subscription is for it to sync with your banks, and across devices, etc., and the security protocols this entails, which are an ongoing cost to any enterprise.
Also, the excellent classes, free for as long as you need them. Also if you bought via Apple store for example, Apple gets their cut.
But you could get your free spreadsheet to sync across devices without the bank connection, or just keep a notepad and pencil in your pocket, and you update each budget item as you spend.
Me too. I have not yet succumbed to the YNAB subscription. My upgrade to Mohave will eventually mean I lose that battle. I adore the company and software but have no interest in auto-downloads of my data so get no value from the software change and just have to pay on and on and on. A one-time cost every few years, fine.
I am also staring a new consulting business. So as I try to find software and services that will aid me I of course find everyone wants their monthly cut. It is holding back progress.
If sites consistently have good material, you help your readers by letting us know. That should be worth the subscription. A pound of flesh? I think you’re being too dramatic.
Maybe a little dramatic, but really I’m trying to maintain the “thousand cuts” metaphor. If you read what that actually refers to, then the “pound of flesh” thing makes total sense!
Depends. I hate it when bloggers post links to paid sites.
I don’t mind when bloggers point to paid sites, but I want them to tell me they’re paid sites. Don’t make me click through and discover the paywall. Tell me it’s a NYT article so I can decide whether to use one of my monthly articles on it. Don’t make me discover the fact on my own.
I think we’ll eventually start seeing a rise in piracy across the mainstream again, and while I don’t advocate breaking the law, the threshold for where that will be more advantageous for more people is starting to be reached.
Before you dismiss my argument, hear me out: Music piracy started primarily because nobody wanted to pay $20-$30 for an album when all they wanted was one or two songs. That led to services like Napster all the other offshoots.
You can buy and “own” music at $1/song now, which is the right value to price ratio for most people.
Video streaming (Netflix primarily) has become so popular because it provided the right price to value ratio for most people to not bother with finding and downloading pirated copies of movies and TV shows. It was and still is convenient in its delivery and required virtually no effort. Blockbuster, unless you had a subscription, rarely rented the same movie to someone twice. Why? Because the people that wanted to watch it several times would just make a copy of it to keep. Blockbuster’s subscriptions had been cheap enough and you knew that you could always go back to watch something again if you wanted to at no marginal added cost.
That said, we, collectively, have become lazy and have entrusted the storing and distribution of our content to these large companies.
Home storage solutions have become dirt cheap, and it’s easy enough to build a multi-Terabyte storage array for anyone with little to no ongoing costs.
I am curious to see where things are heading, but I know for a fact that the big players in the streaming world know about a declining yield curve when the costs get too high, consumer convenience decreases too much and piracy increases.
Maybe for all those articles we want to read it would be nice if they charged a “per article” fee. I’d gladly pay $.05 or $.10 to read something if I only read 2-3 articles a month at a given site.
I do pay for a subscription to the NYT though.
I was thinking about that. I think I too would be willing to pay some sort of a la carte price to access articles. But the issue I see is that the sites that already do this charge a lot. Admittedly, the only sites where I can remember looking for “per article” pricing have been academic journals, and those are always expensive. Still, I’ve paid $8 or $12 for certain articles when they’re for GRS research purposes. They’re a business expense.
…
…
…
Oh. Sometimes I am an idiot. A NYT or WSJ subscription would be a business expense too. That doesn’t negate the cost entirely, but it reduces it by about 25%…
That’s what I was describing above. Not a subscription, but a service that would offer this across platforms, so I can buy what’s of interest but leave the rest.
Your point about piracy is interesting, Treo. I was massive music pirate back in the days of Napster. But I also continued to buy tons of albums on CD. I pirated for, as you say, the one or two songs I wanted from artists where I didn’t want a full album. Or to sample new music. When iTunes came along, my piracy dropped to nearly zero. (I say “nearly” because I pirated — and still do from time to time — the things for which there are no legal ways for me to buy things digitally. Looking at you, Studio Ghibli.)
Anyhow, I too would be unsurprised to see piracy rates increase. I personally haven’t reached that point yet. As long as I can purchase Star Trek: Discovery through iTunes eventually, then I’ll wait. If it gets locked behind a CBS paywall? Well, no promises.
Just about everything produced by Studio Ghibli is available on DVD and Blu-Ray. How do you define “no legal ways for me to buy things legally”? BTW, that’s a rather redundant statement with regards to the legality.
Me, I got everything from Studio Ghibli from my library and converted them to MP4 format so that my wife would watch them on her iPad.
Oops. That’s a typo. I meant “buy things digitally”. I’ll fix that.
I own most (but not all) of the Studio Ghibli library on DVD. I no longer own a DVD player and haven’t for more than five years. I still own the DVDs — they’re sitting behind me on a bookshelf even as I type — but I don’t have a way to watch them. I want to watch them digitally. Preferably through iTunes, since that’s where my movie library resides. But Studio Ghibli, despite its distribution deal with Disney, is (for some reason) opposed to digital distribution.
So, when I want to watch, say, Spirited Away on my laptop, I get it by bittorrent. And I feel ZERO guilt. I already own the DVD, have paid to see it in theaters twice, and will buy it immediately when it’s released on a digital platform. Today, though? Today, I pirate it.
(p.s. Why don’t I purge the DVDs if I have no DVD player? So that I feel no guilt when pirating. If I own a film on DVD that isn’t available on my computer, I feel no qualms about finding a digital version online. And truthfully? I often just rip my DVDs locally.)
Great article (no paywall) on just this topic at https://www.howtogeek.com/424708/how-piracy-makes-legal-streaming-services-better/
Sorry that I did no join the bus with cutting the chord sooner but happy now that my bill went from$144 to $60 I am sure glad I did. I was tired of paying for a mere 78 channels of nothing and only watching 5 channels. I found those 5 channels on a package at $16 a month. So a total bill of $76
Perspective is key. I would rather have what I watch for $68 less than $144.
Ha, great stuff, I like the “get off my lawn!” tone :)
I KonMari’ed a few years ago, for the most part. Especially regarding social media on the phone. My rule is that I don’t take social media with me – none are on my phone. If I use them it’s on my full PC which limits my time nicely.
The paywall-article thing bugs me too, as well as sites that want you to turn off your ad blocker. But hey, we can vote with our mouse clicks. If the NYT doesn’t want to let me read their stuff free, then I’ll conveniently not be involved with them as a consumer at all. That’s what they want, that’s what they get. It’s a big internet, their shoes will be filled.
JD,
I am a free markets/capitalist kind-of-guy at heart.
Here’s the way life works:
1. You pay for things when the value you receive from something meets or exceeds its monetary cost. (Or government regulation makes you, but I digress on that point.)
2. A product is priced at what “the market will bear.” As a business, if that price exceeds your costs, you make money and presumably stay in business. If the market price does not cover your costs, you don’t stay in business very long.
The whole subscription thing is businesses figuring out what the market price for a product is. If you’re willing to pay the subscription price, then TBH, the one-time-fee model probably under priced the product. If you’re not willing to pay the subscription price because *it is not delivering enough value to you* THEN STOP PAYING! Companies will either have to lower their subscription costs, go back to a flat fee model, or close up shop. But if you keep paying, well, presumably you’re receiving sufficient value from it.
I like free stuff just as much as the next guy (I really do, I promise!) but it really is asinine to truly believe that stuff (even in limited quantities) should be free. At least, that they should be produced without compensation to the producer. (We can quibble about the true cost of ads to the consumer.) I’m sure you’ll be the first to admit, with your banner ad reversal, that you feel you should be compensated for your content. I certainly don’t donate my time to my employer… I keep showing up (and haven’t been looking for other jobs) because I’m reasonably well compensated for doing so.
As for the NYT, WSJ, and what not… we all know that legacy news services have had a heck of a time financially in the web era, so I can’t begrudge them for wanting to make money. I have a feeling the future of web news services will be a pay per article (possibly something like $0.50/article) and then a true subscription model for the “all you can read”. TBH, I’d pay one monthly subscription to one newspaper, and then some coin here and there for other random articles of interest.
In the spirit of this post… the first thing I do when a GRS page loads is close out the ad :D
I’m just as capitalist as the next American. Maybe moreso than most. But I guess I want an alternative.
I hate tons of advertising (and I too close out the bottom ad on this site haha), but I’m willing to accept some advertising in order to gain access to content. And sometimes I’m willing to pay. I guess maybe what I want is the option. If the NYT had a version with ads for folks like me and an ad-free paged version, then each of us could choose.
And I know some of this rant is “asinine”. I get it. I knew that when I published it. But it’s still genuine frustration with how things are going. You’re right that the market will eventually sort this out. I guess I just need to buckle in for an expensive ride…at least for a while.
You can negotiate with the NYT. I pay them a small fraction of the sticker price. Beats getting dead tree slabs dropped at my door once a day.
Dude, you can’t just say that and not elaborate. What do you do? Do you call them up and say, “Hey, I’d like to subscribe online but I can’t afford your asking price?”
I wrote a long reply but my connection crashed.
TL;DR: It’s customary for papers to charge just half of the stated price, e.g. WSJ is really $16, not the $32 they threaten with publicly.
So yeah, ask to cancel, they make you an offer, etc.
A lot of these news sites have wildly different subscription prices based on whether you’re a new or existing customer, and whether you’re re-upping after a canceled subscription.
I initially subscribed to NYT online for the introductory offer of $8/month, and after a year it automatically went up to the “real” price of $16/month. That was a bit too steep for me so I canceled and was going to try and subscribe using my husband’s educator discount. But then I went back to the site and found that I could re-subscribe for just $4/month for some period time of (6 months), so I did that instead. It’s a lot like Comcast, where to keep the cost reasonable, you have to take the time to call in every 6 months or so and threaten to cancel to keep the “intro” rate — otherwise they’ll bump you to the higher long-term rate.
Just FYI, you can cancel your NYT subscription via their chat service, so you don’t have to call in. That makes it easy enough to subscribe and cancel when the prices get too high.
Yep, I pay 4 bucks too. That’s what I pay for the Washington Post, which I actually read a lot more, and they matched it.
NYT is nice as a reference, and for archival purposes, but the articles are way too damn long for me to read as news. I treat it as a magazine. Also, Paul Krugman FTW.
For bullet-point news, the Reuters app is free and in my experience alerts you faster than all others.
Just went to “like” your comment, Nerdo, and realized I wasn’t on Facebook. Haha.
Oh! Facebook sucks, but check out stars on Kinja.
Could you implement here? I think it would be a strong feedback mechanism…
At this point I’ll not that the vast majority of Americans aren’t capitalist. Since they have no capital.
The interesting thing will be seeing what happens to all these streaming services in 10-20 years when pop culture has moved on. For instance, right now every studio and network can create their own streaming service that will attract subscribers based on their “tent pole” titles. But the reason these tent pole titles work that way is because they were originally available to a much wider audience on network TV or cable.
NBC having The Office might carry them through the next 5-10 years. Then what? The next generation will say “What’s The Office?”. The next generation won’t watch network or cable TV, so they won’t see the shows the producers are hoping will become the new tent pole titles. I think the proliferation of fragmented streaming services will eventually have to be consolidated once the titles that are making them possible are grandfathered out of pop culture.
Disney will be ok because oddly enough they can keep pumping their product through good old-fashioned cinemas, which will in turn drive audiences to their streaming service. Who said cinema is dead? But for companies that only do TV, that’s not an option.
Ah, the early days. I loved seeing a Toyota ad on TV. Their web site was listed as thhp://www.toyota.com
I get a lot of stuff at the local library. Free. Star Trek Discovery is on DVD. The Office is on DVD. Friends is on DVD. Most (all?) Disney movies. They also have books, and some online access to magazines and a few newspapers. Many libraries will let you set up an account even if you aren’t local. So do some searching and see your options.
I can usually get around the New York Times paywall by using a VPN to change my IP address. I have also found Privacy.com helpful for subscriptions for Netflix, HBO, etc. because you can generate one-time use debit cards in order to pay for it month-to-month rather than having the charges automatically recur. That way I’m opting in every month instead of opting out, which I will likely forget to do anyway
Maybe this only works for a few articles per month, but when I click on a WSJ link, it pops up a box that says “subscribe to read this article.” But I close the box, and I can read the article.
Also, my library offers free access to NY online content. You have to renew your “subscription” every 24 hours, and you don’t get the crossword, but you can read articles to your heart’s content.
OK, but there does need to be a separate post on that story. Car debt! All the car debt!
Libraries are offering more digital services including online subscriptions to newspapers, databases and magazines, movie streaming from anywhere. All you need is a library card, device and internet.
. And even if your library does not offer they often have reciprocal privileges with larger systems. Ask you librarian they will love to help you !
My husband and I were just discussing this after news that Doctor Who will leave Prime for HBO Max (which is not HBO Go). He believes Netflix and Disney will prevail and the rest will have to figure something else out.
When we first cut, we did PS Vue. We missed Viacom channels (mostly Nick Jr for the kids) and left for Dirext TV Now, which lost channels and increased pricing in May. We’re now on Philo and Pluto with a Starz add-on (we had Netflix and Prime before cutting cable and continue both now).
It’s exhausting and infuriating. And paying $66/mo for the internet in the first place also stinks.
I agree. Disney and HBO can stand on their own, but I expect after this fragmenting the studios will eventually go back to the license model, or another model we haven’t seen yet. But I dont think the individual subscription paradigm will last.
Can’t say I agree about subscription models being purely profit driven. Obviously that’s part of it, they’re not a charity, but they do have ongoing costs and maintenance. Bug fixes take time, which costs money. When Apple overhauls some part of an OS or they release a new feature, software engineers have to change things in response, which takes time. Different operating systems require different engineers, which is an expense. Ensuring the customers who paid for your software four years ago and stay on the older OS have at least a decent experience requires attention and maintenance. Companies often pull apps because they’re just not profitable in the App Store, e.g. Panic pulling their well-loved Transmit app from the App Store.
I think if you narrow the complaint down to entertainment then I think there’s less to criticize. These companies are obviously just trying to grab as much of the pie as possible, it’s most likely a money grab. But even then, the vast system that must be running behind the scenes to store, categorize, and stream content, and ensuring it runs smoothly and can scale, takes money, whether you’re building and maintaining it yourself or your contracting out to another company. Not to mention whatever money the publishers expect, in cases like Spotify and Apple Music. Something tells me the similarity of price in music streaming across services means the publishers are asking for a significant amount for access to that stuff.
I enjoy the blog a lot, btw! Always learning something when I read, and I enjoy your unique perspective on personal finance.
Great comment, Justin. Thanks.
You brought up Panic’s Transmit, and I want to use that as an example of a couple of things. First, this is an example of non-optional software for me. (Somebody asked about that earlier in the comment thread.) Transmit has been a part of my workflow for about twenty years. It’s how I transfer files to and from my websites. It’s non-optional to me. Yes, there are other FTP clients. Yes, I could use the command line. After ~20 years, though, I live and breathe Transmit. It’s non-optional for my day-to-day work.
Now, Transmit costs a $45 flat fee. I’m fine with this. (And Panic, overall, is an excellent company that I’m happy to support. It doesn’t hurt that my dog is good friends with the dog of a Panic employee haha.) But if they were to switch to a subscription model? Well, that would piss me off. There’s no reason for Transmit to be subscription software. If Panic did that, I’d recognize it as a pure profit play and it’d make me want to find an alternative. I’m not a huge fan of having to pay to upgrade for every major version, but I do it because their software is non-optional for me. But a subscription plan would send me to other options. Or to the command line.
It’s interesting to me that a flat fee + periodic upgrade fees vs monthly subs is so bothersome. If the cost is basically the same, I’m not seeing the big deal. I suppose people could spend $60 and never choose to maintain/update it, but it just seems like a different pay model for the same cost.
I will NEVER complain about the cost to access good journalism. I’m a local subscriber, and digital for the NYT and WaPo. We’re all screwed if people don’t support or value it.
The costs aren’t the same, though, Eileen. That’s why it’s so frustrating. From my experience, software subscriptions usually cost on the order of 2x what a flat-free purchase would be. So, it’s cheaper to purchase up front, but after a few years you’ve paid much more than you would otherwise have paid.
Under the “pay once” model, I have a tendency to purchase a piece of software, then not upgrade until absolutely necessary. My continued use of Quicken 2005 is a fine example. I kept the same version of Photoshop for a long long time until a recent OS upgrade broke it. Same with my screencap software and many others. But when I’m forced to “subscribe” to the programs I buy, I end up paying much more.
Ok, I suppose if you’re holding on to s/w for up to 14 years, you are coming out ahead! :)
It would be interesting to see the revenue modeling/subscription forecasting for one of these decisions (YNAB for example). Just to see it all laid out.
I guess the subscribe and forget is part of the calc. For example, I re-upped my Sirius/XM sub last year with a super cheap 6 month rate. I wrote on my calendar when to call to negotiate again and didn’t get to it. I’ve now been charged my 2nd month at the high rate. So, good for them that I haven’t gotten around to it.
Thanks J. D. I Love being able to read your blog for free. And I will be happy to donate from time to time.
I wait for articles to come up and read them on my spare time.
It’s interesting to bring up this topic to the table.
For me Netflix has become non optional, and some alternatives don’t fulfill my needs.
I will make the exercise but I think I am pretty down to the basics on subscriptions.
Thanks again.
You are right as usual JD. I am currently using a version of Quicken 2010 that I have isolated to keep from updating, to avoid Quicken shifting me to a subscription model. Yes, I have to manually add receipts and reconcile, but worthit not to have ot pay a fee. My next battle is with Microsoft Office, which I use extensively to manage our finances. After that, Norton Security is on the hit list. Only 2 things that I find worth the fee to renew annually are Amazon Prime, and MalwareBytes. Prime because we get the value from it in our household, and MalwareBytes b/c they deliver what they promise, it just works.
In our household we have ditched loyalty to almost ALL companies, and have gone to what I call a “race to the bottom” strategy. Everything is subject to change, at any moment. We ditched At&T for TWC, then ditched TWC for Hulu, and are now ditching Hulu to go back to AT&T, because it’s cheaper. Electric provider – gone, Car Insurance – renegotiated every 6 months. Life insurance – If I can get a cheaper premium, I change. Even grocery stores aren’t immune. Service is dead, it’s all about price now. I also cancelled almost all magazine subscriptions, b/c the value wasn’t there. Business Week was a prime example. I was a subscriber for over 20 years. Then they told me I needed to pay extra to access online content. Cancelled that day, and never looked back.
FYI – Thanks for the great content. A lot of FIRE blogs out there, you are consistently one of the best.
Yeap, I learned a long time ago there is no free lunch.
Thanks goodness for the library, though. We get most of our entertainment from there.
Luckily, I’ve always practiced digital minimization. We don’t subscribe to anything so I don’t have to cut back.
It’s super annoying with WSJ and NYT. Do they pay Google somehow? Why are their articles on top of the searches?
This is the best article on here in months! This is not to say that other articles are bad, just that I really enjoy this, “cranky old man” and all. FWIW, I’m 30, so not able to claim that status yet, but oh man do I agree and love the philosophical rant intertwined with financial. In general…bring on the rants!
I’ve got a long way to go still, but I’ve found that as I’ve made progress in getting more financially stable I’ve actually become more willing and interested in subscribing to things that I love.
I fully admit, a good chunk of this is probably excess creeping back into my lifestyle that I really need to revisit and excise again, eternal vigilance and all that.
But aside from that, there are things I actually feel GOOD about supporting and paying for on a recurring basis.
Charity, for example. I give monthly to some 501c(3) organizations, like PBS (which actually has their own STREAMING service, awesome!) and The Nature Conservancy, and I definitely feel good about this. I’m considering increasing my automatic giving to the ones I like, and eliminating the ones I don’t feel connected to.
I’ve also made it a point to get a subscription to my local newspaper. Yes, I know print is dying, and I’m part of the problem. But I’m increasingly realizing how local reporting is so very important, and I honestly enjoy a good Sunday paper, including the funnies and all those random sales flyers!
(Also, I accept the argument that if I people don’t pay for the services they value (vote for or against with their wallets), then those services will go away and we’ll all be getting worse news, worse products, worse service, etc.)
I 100% WILL be taking a hard look at many of these new subscriptions you’re talking about, I WILL be picking winners and losers when it comes to ridiculous costs for things that don’t require them.
Maybe if I cut out all the stuff that I don’t need, I’ll be better able to spend mindfully on the things which do genuinely improve my life?
One thing I already know: Microsoft keeps trying to get people to buy subscriptions services for their Office products, including Excel. I need a spreadsheet software for my budget, but I’ve been using the free Libre Office software suite just fine for years!
Not that I browse obits every day, but didn’t they used to be printed as a public service? Now it seems half the time, the publisher of the obit won’t let you read it unless you sign up for their trial subscription. I wonder what will fill the vacuum when streaming does become too expensive for the average person. I can sit and watch endless free Youtube videos, but even they’re starting to charge $10/month for some channels.
Bill, your comment takes me back to the late ’80s when one of my duties for a daily newspaper was the obits. We got all info from calling local funeral homes. There was a particular formula to be used that, in my opinion, had some class.
When that was stopped and families started writing their own, I thought that some of them really lacked dignity.
Just a rant from an old lady. (Now get off my lawn. ) ?
Mark my words, the next recession will feature lots of article about how “monthly subscription creep” caused more damage to people’s finances than all the avocado toast in the world.
I give great loyalty to programs that charge me only once, or every few years after a major upgrade. Yoga apps that ask me to pay $19.95 a month for something I clearly won’t actually use get deleted faster than you cay say “no thanks.”
If there are apps/services that you really enjoy, intend to keep, and are on iOS platforms, buy discounted iTunes gift cards to save a few bucks. I usually can find them at least 15% discounted and the savings adds up. Before I sign up for ANYTHING online, I’ll find out if they’re on iOS.
Just a factual correction: if you register an email and password at NYT you still get 10 free articles a month. Granted they will try to sell you a sub and so on. If you are willing to pay, watch the entry offers, they vary by time of the month. I have seen a 99 cents a month deal for several months.
Middle class is suffering and paying the price to stay in middle class. Median household income in the U.S. was $61,372 at the end of 2017, according to the Census Bureau. With inflation this is just around 2000 level. In that same period average tuition at public colleges went up 549% and health care costs rose about 276%. You add housing and car price increases and you definitely have a struggling middle class.
I just wanted to comment that: I don’t think any of the subscription services you mention are really worth it- except Pzizz. Its the only one I give money to, and happily.
Super interesting article! It’s funny to think that cable and other TV services are going out of style only to circle right back around…because basically that is what paying for all these streaming services will be like right? It will be like paying for certain “channels” we want which is basically what cable is – or was.
Makes me want to create an app that allows you to pay for all these services in one lumped monthly payment and it combines all the services in one… JD let me know if you wanna get in on this business lol. You all heard it hear first. We can call it Kable 2.0!
Side note – I do really wish you had referenced Taylor Swifts new song “Death By A Thousand Cuts” as that would’ve been really funny ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTEFSuFfgnU
In the past few weeks The Atlantic website has started having warnings about how you’ve read 1 of your few free articles this month. So when they start asking for payment appears to be: now.