The Economist runs more than that. So does The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. And people used to routinely have many magazine subscriptions that were at least $1/month.
I agree expectations have changed for many people. But spending what you do on Spotify for all you can eat magazine subscriptions is actually an unsustainably low number.
My point was everyone can't do that. It's not a solution, it just happens to be those producers are of a size to make that choice and get some value.
The dude making a hydro turbine I watch for 4 hours, he's not getting that. I'm not going to patreon for that, it sucks but I'm honest. I patreon someone building a whole boat, seems cheap I'd do the same for just that.
We all hate advertising but really what does the alternative look like. Consciously donating just isn't going to cut it.
And yet, they still have ads. It’s not clear what I’m paying for. They aren’t just annoying, they are a clear violation of basic journalism—you don’t publish things that will scare the advertisers away, which is almost all news.
All I can say is that advertising has been a part of newspapers and magazines for essentially forever. (I would also add that I don't seem to get ads from The Economist on the mobile app.)
There are no-ad magazines out there but it's pretty uncommon and the subscriptions are relatively expensive to cover the lack of advertising revenue.
The Economist runs more than that. So does The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. And people used to routinely have many magazine subscriptions that were at least $1/month.
I agree expectations have changed for many people. But spending what you do on Spotify for all you can eat magazine subscriptions is actually an unsustainably low number.