- Time removed its paywall in June 2023, resulting in a rise in advertising revenue but a loss of digital subscribers, with traffic remaining relatively flat.
- The decision was influenced by broader industry trends and the publisher’s focus on working with advertisers and leveraging its brand equity in other ventures.
- Time aims to achieve profitability by expanding its direct advertising and sponsorship business, growing its global events slate, and exploring new ventures like connected television.
Why haven’t publication embraced crypto donations like BAT?
I feel much better about sending tokens ive earned by selling my attention, and then sending those earnings to publications which garner my attention.
Is media just too old to adapt?
Because everything about Brave is complete fucking nonsense and doing business with them in any way is deranged.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Why won’t you do my obvious scam? are you an old?
Why would it have to be a crypto donation? Their bank accounts are in USD. Most of their readers have USD. People can transfer USD. What does some arbitrary crypto thing you want to pretend is money add that makes it better for those “most people”?
Yes all over the world people can send USD but the banks take a big cut.
If by “a big cut” you mean maybe a few percent, and that most businesses take electronic payments anyway because there are advantages (people are more likely to buy stuff when convenient, accounting is easier, less risk of theft/loss than physical cash, etc) then sure, I guess.
If you think the solution is to make up a new kind of imaginary money that takes a shitton of energy to maintain, which has tons of different types (Bitcoin, Ethereum, whatever one was referenced in the initial comment) and would happen to greatly benefit those who happened to be early adopters (TOTAL coincidence, I’m sure)… No.
Using crypto helps diversify wealth away from the banks and individuals that own the overwhelming majority of dollars, euros, etc.
Who do you want to benefit?
Generally speaking, people who contribute to society.
I don’t see “gambling on the right cryptocurrency” as a contribution to society. I also don’t see how “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of dollars, euros, etc.” wouldn’t simply become “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of cryptocurrency” by virtue of working with that
Okay but like, you also realize gas fees for transactions can get stupid expensive right? Banks don’t have variable rates.
The problem is that Time and every other news outlet think they are the cats pajamas and deserve your subscription. They suffer a similar problem to streaming platforms except news is not exclusive.
If these companies could organize and build a “pay once, get access to everything everywhere” model, they would see subscriptions go through the roof and get more money. But since the owners of these news outlets want only their own subscribers to go up, it’s never going to happen.
I’m not going to pay for 5-10 news subscriptions no matter how great the reporting is.
But I’d be willing to pay $20 or so a month if that meant I can access any article on any news website.
> pay once, get access to everything everywhere
> thinks about Elsevier
OH GOD PLEASE NO
I use (paid) Apple News, and I really enjoy it. Are there no other “pay once” platforms out there?
My only complaint is that some articles still show ads despite being subscribed, but that’s taken care of with DNS-based ad blocking (though you have to also block a a hostname pointing to an Apple DoH server which I find funny).
BAT is trash but I’d love to see more quick crypto donation options.
deleted by creator
That’s not a problem. That’s the correct reaction.
deleted by creator
That would have been true if legit crypto existed.
deleted by creator
Ahhh yes. Some of them are just made up things that people say is totally money, while the others are actually just made up things that people say is totally money. Huge difference, I’m sure.
deleted by creator
I’m not trying to to die on the sword of bat, but for end users being able to just easily transfer or donate without having to know crypto…
Convenience and security is a balance.
Everything that is convenient is not secure.
Everything that is secure is not convenient.
Crypto that is “easy” screams “these people will lose all their money because it isn’t secure.”
But my credit union is both more convenient and more secure than crypto.
Oh agreed, wholeheartedly. I really just meant that if you’re going to push crypto to consumers, giving them nonsecure options is pretty bad.
maybe it is tax reasons? I know that for personal taxes you have to simply declare crypto earnings but business tax laws don’t really like grey areas.
The tax man doesn’t care if your business takes cash, card, or crypto. Income is income, whether you’re a business or a regular joe.
I don’t think it’s that simple for a business. Crypto is simultaneously an asset and an income once it is sold, but also not a traditionally defined accounting asset. Combine that with how slow the government has been to properly define crypto, I bet most businesses would rather just not have to deal with it. Last thing they’d want is the IRS coming after them for doing it wrong.
As someone who’s accepted crypto as payment for about 10 years now, it really isn’t. Income is income to the IRS. You pay taxes on the value of the crypto you received as payment, full stop. It really doesn’t matter what you accept as payment. Could be crypto, could be russet potatos.