Zero Hedge Premium $ 30 a month..why?

"I used to have Ransquawk delayed 1 min"

Did you know the benzinga squawk on TOS was delayed at least 20 seconds , but not divulged to the users ?

Been like that for years. So the paying cust use them as fodder. Kinda sad really.
 
The best thing about ZH was that many times commenters, that were expert in the field being discussed, would pop in with insights that even the article’s author clearly didn’t understand. Divergent experts going back and forth was a valuable education. That was absolutely friggin’ awesome.

They forgot why Fight Club was a thing ... or simply were Drudged by the usual collectivist billionaire propagandists.

“Premium” is way overpriced and “Free” morphed into an opportunity cost to use.

Two feet, two shots.

BTW, Hat Tip to Baron and for his vision, strategy and long lived operations. Ditto Sponsors.

Well done all around!

T
 
TimMykes said:
"I used to have Ransquawk delayed 1 min"

Did you know the benzinga squawk on TOS was delayed at least 20 seconds , but not divulged to the users ?

Been like that for years. So the paying cust use them as fodder. Kinda sad really.
More...

Given risk of stuff like that (if not a given) for an expensive service, 1 min delay was fine for me. Just used it to trend follow major moves that take 5+ minutes to hours to unfold. The extra minute just gave extra time observing the market action before I heard the reason. :-)
 
Personally I find ZH to be a useful and engaging source of information. Of course they have a clearly-staked angle and bias, as do all media outlets these days. Also, the increasingly oppressive censorship environment is no joke, wherein oligarchs and Woketalitarians are collaborating to advance their respective interests. Earlier this year newspapers were in all seriousness describing ZH as a "far-right website" and Naked Capitalism as a trojan horse for Russian intelligence.

I'd sub for $50 a year (which is how much guys like Taibbi and Greenwald charge on Substack) and forego the other content bells and whistles.
 
Baron said:
Ok, several points. And this is coming from someone who has been in the website/advertising business for 23 years.

1. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to run a profitable news operation like ZH these days on Google ads alone, especially considering that they only get paid when users click on an ad. It's obvious right from the start that this is true because the first thing that ZH is offering in exchange for the subscription fee is no ads. But the important question to ask is... when is the last time you visited ZH and also clicked on an advertisement you saw there? The answer is probably never. So your value to them as an occasional lurker is essentially zero. And there are probably a lot of people like you out there.

2. You can't compare the monthly subscription cost of a service like Netflix to a monthly subscription like ZH because Netflix is a mainstream service, meaning that everyone on the planet can find and enjoy content on Netflix. They can afford to keep the price low because they make it up on volume. Last time I checked, Netflix had almost 200 Million subscribers. The market for a paid niche news service like ZH is nowhere near that big. Not even close.

3. Financial and political news is everywhere online, so ZH has tons of competition out there to deal with. So realistically they can only expect to capture a small percentage of the overall demand, especially since a lot of the news available out there is still free for end-users. The Wall St. Journal is an old and respected publication so if anyone can make the subscription model work before anyone else, it will be them. But again, the WSJ is competition for ZH, and the only way ZH can compete is if they can publish niche articles that provide content that the mainstream media doesn't provide. But unfortunately, the more niche a publication becomes, the smaller the audience becomes. So that's why you see the higher monthly prices they are wanting. It's really the only way that the business model works when you consider the fragmented and small size of the market they are going after.

4. The primary reason you are seeing so many blogs and news services moving to a subscription model is because Google and the other ad networks are essentially black boxes. In other words, Google takes a significant cut of the ad revenue and then passes along whatever is left to the publisher. But the publishers have no idea how much Google is scraping off the top, but it is significant. That's why you see Google raking in billions and the blog/news publishers are barely able to survive and thus need to switch to a more profitable model of doing business.
More...
Those are all good points but I guess i dont personally see the value in it for me to pay 30 a month. maybe for some people it is. i think the walls street journal is 20 bucks a month.

i dont have any idea how they make money either
 
tradeking007yahoo said:
i think the walls street journal is 20 bucks a month.
More...
WSJ is worth it at least. ZH is ok for general timely news coverage on some issues you might not see in the mainstream, but you have to mentally filter out all the gold bugs, dollar bears, and predicting the 50th of the last 2 stock market crashes...
 
TimMykes said:
"I used to have Ransquawk delayed 1 min"

Did you know the benzinga squawk on TOS was delayed at least 20 seconds , but not divulged to the users ?
even the paying customers are on a delay. compared to bloomberg and everything is slow or delayed news wise comlared to bloomberg.
Been like that for years. So the paying cust use them as fodder. Kinda sad really.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top