yeah, but people posting like they're engaged in a media criticism exercise isn't much better

AI Companies: it's outrageous that DeepSeek has ripped off our models to produce a cheaper, inferior version

Publishers: uh-huh, sure

London Economic is operated by Joe Media, who are owned by venture capitalists with links to fossil fuel industry

It was the Sissoko 'handball' in the 2019 UCL final, imv

I have the opportunity to watch a movie in full tonight, for the first time in 10 months. What should I watch?

imagine I posted that video of Richard Spencer getting decked while TWIABP plays, I just can't find it

So where did we land on Nazi-punching this time around?

The BBC sends the entire country a notification for every single murder, and every single photo the royal family put on Instagram, and I don't know why

It's usually been quite easy to see the cynical/personal motives behind whatever Musk is doing, but I really don't see it with his anti-UK stuff (of AfD stuff). What's the best explanation beyond "he's radicalised himself"?

That and buying a keeper who thinks he's Ronaldhino

But then that consumer probably isn't on £35k a year.

I'm not opposed to the idea of subscription overload, but I'm not sure this example demonstrates it. There are whales out there paying £500 a month for 100 different substacks. Who's to say what they will and won't stomach?

Genuinely, this would mean a total national spend on media of approx £30bn a year. The UK spends £23bn on alcohol.

If the average person was spending £63 a month on news the media industry would be gold-plating their third Lamborghinis

People can also just not read the site. No one is being forced

Sad to report it isn't. You also need affiliates, and events, and direct reader revenue (whether subscription or donation or both). Local news orgs didn't have the resources to build new revenue streams and that's why they got killed

What product were customers buying under a free-to-read programmatic ad sales model?

Less than the extra revenue gained from doing direct ad sales. Most outlets do a combination of both to maximise both revenue and minimise costs

The industry came up with a new business model instead, which was what you objected so strenuously to

Less than the revenue gained. Hence why it's efficient.

68% of 25%

We're gonna do it

Incidentally, directly sold ads, by an ad sales department, often bring in 10 or 20x of the revenue per pageview. So most newspapers still find it efficient to sell ads directly.

You can make money off them. You can't make enough.

Ok. Google Search comprises 75% of Google's ad business revenue. So that's 75% of all the ad spend on Google, that publishers make 0% on.

But that used to *all* go to publishers - because Google didn't exist. That's what killed the business model

How do you think newspapers sold ads before the internet? With an ad sales, department, perhaps?

Ok. What % does a publisher keep on a Google Search ad?

So now, that spend is going say, 75% directly to Google Search or Meta, and 25% to media owners, meaning those newspapers that used to get 100% are actually only getting 20%. That's what happened to the ad-supported business model

80% of revenue isn't the same as 80% of an individual ad. If you are an advertiser, you used to spend 100% of your money on media owners - TV, newspapers etc. now, that spend can be better targeted through Google Search or Meta ads, within their platforms, because they have a lot more data

*revenues*. What happens is fire every $100 of spend, 80 goes to Facebook and Google directly. It doesn't matter if you're integrated with AdSense, the spend is going elsewhere already, so an article you'd have made 50 on, you now make 10.

12 senior outfield players older than 18 available