2021年3月9日 星期二

On Tech: Google and Facebook killed free

Plus, how to avoid zombie subscriptions.

Google and Facebook killed free

Shira Inbar

We're constantly being nudged to pay to subscribe.

There are all those paid streaming video and music services. News organizations, including The New York Times, want subscribers. Your favorite dating site, email service or messaging app might also ask you to pay for stuff you once got free. Paid subscriptions are nothing new, but increasingly they seem to be the future of everything.

I do wonder, though, how much of the subscription abundance is motivated by a conviction that paying for stuff this way is the best path for us and people trying to earn a living — and how much is a lack of other options. Google and Facebook have so thoroughly dominated the advertising systems that sponsor information and entertainment that subscriptions may be the only realistic alternative.

Let me ask you to cast your mind back to the olden days. Lots of information and entertainment was free or less expensive because of advertising.

You gave some of your time and brain power to Pepsi, the supermarket's job listings and the local car dealership, and that helped pay for "Seinfeld," your local newspaper and music on the radio. There were negatives to this approach, but it made news and entertainment relatively affordable and widely available.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our attention subsidized most things on the early web, too. News organizations and other sites competed to attract visitors to their pages, as many assumed that advertising would be a dominate way to pay for the internet economy. (Many people, particularly in the journalism profession, say that this was a mistake.)

It hasn't really turned out that way. Google, Facebook and Amazon together pull in nearly two out of every three dollars spent on digital ads in the United States. Everyone else is grabbing for scraps.

The result is that many people and companies have lost faith that ads can subsidize the stuff we like or generate real income for musicians, writers, podcast hosts and others trying to make a living online.

The big music companies once hoped that Pandora, YouTube or other methods of online listening sponsored by ads could replace the money that people once spent on CDs. Nope. Now record labels have gone full-bore into subscription streaming. YouTube and Instagram stars nudge people to follow them to subscription services like Patreon and OnlyFans, where they can generate more income.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another way of looking at this, the Bloomberg Opinion columnist Alex Webb wrote recently, is that Google and Facebook are giving us useful free services, but they made every other digital service more expensive. (And Facebook and Google's "free" services come at the cost of the data arms race to track everything we do.)

I am excited to see what happens next with the subscription economy. It's an opportunity for individuals and companies to connect directly with fans. And we should cheer on new ideas that might be better. Why does a web search engine have to be paid for by creepy ads?

But just as the advertising economy has had serious trade-offs, the subscription shift probably does, too.

Advertising made it possible to have news and entertainment that everyone could afford. What if we need to buy five subscription streaming services to watch football, Oprah interviews and other stuff you used to watch on TV for free? Subscriptions can get expensive.

ADVERTISEMENT

And I worry that we've oversold the ability of people and organizations to make a living from subscriptions. There will be a reckoning if a tiny fraction of people make steady incomes from Twitch streaming and podcasts on Patreon, and everyone else is hustling for peanuts.

Trading attention for things we wanted seemed like a fair deal for decades — until the bargain soured. The same thing could happen with all those people and companies asking us to subscribe.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

TIP OF THE WEEK

Avoiding zombie subscriptions

One annoyance of the subscription economy is that we sometimes forget to cancel something. I've done it. Brian X. Chen, the consumer technology columnist for The New York Times, tells us how to avoid automated subscription renewals that we didn't intend:

Maybe you meant to subscribe to Audible for only a month to listen to that new book. Maybe you really wanted to check out the Peloton workout app only during a free one-month trial. But most digital subscriptions (including news organizations) take advantage of your forgetfulness and renew automatically.

When it comes to subscriptions I want to use only for a short time, I've gotten in the habit of canceling the subscription immediately after beginning it. That way, I don't have to worry about forgetting to cancel and finding an unexpected credit card charge. (There's no downside to canceling ahead of time.)

Here's how to do that with Apple and Android devices:

On an iPhone: Let's say you subscribe to a streaming app such as Crunchyroll, which offers a two-week free trial. Immediately after subscribing, open the Settings app on your Apple device. Click on your name. Tap Subscriptions, select Crunchyroll and then select Cancel Subscription. You will still have access to the service for two weeks.

On Android devices: Let's say you subscribe to a free trial of Peloton. Immediately after subscribing, open the Google Play Store app. Tap the Menu icon and then tap Subscriptions (on some phones it's labeled Payments and subscriptions). From here, select Peloton and cancel the subscription. You will still have access to the service for a month.

You can do the same thing if you signed up for a subscription on websites like Netflix.com. The methods aren't consistent, but there's usually an option to see your subscription details under the account menu and then select an option to change or cancel the subscription.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

Hugs to this

This is a freaky video of a decapitated sea slug head moving around its body. Annie Roth in The Times described this as an adaptation by the sea slug to ditch parasites and regrow a healthy new body within a few weeks. Nature is cool, isn't it?!

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

Goldilocks and the inflation bears

Will the 2022 economy be just right?
A sign calling on Congress to provide Covid-19 relief displayed on North Capitol Street in Washington, D.C.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

So the American Rescue Plan is actually happening. Given the scale of what has just been accomplished and the difference it will make to millions of lives, any personal sense of relief for those of us who don't need (and won't get) financial help is, of course, irrelevant. But maybe it's worth pointing out just how gratifying this whole process has been for those of us with bitter memories of the great Obama undershoot, when what was billed as a massive stimulus actually fell drastically short of what was needed.

One source of gratification is, of course, the fact that the basics of the plan came through intact — it wasn't watered down in a vain attempt to win over moderate Republican senators (who basically don't exist). Even a couple of weeks ago smart people — like economists at major banks — were assuring me that the final plan would be a lot smaller than the original ask of $1.9 trillion. It wasn't.

There was, to be fair, one big fail: no minimum wage hike, let alone the proposed $15. But that always looked like a long shot. I assume that it will get put forth as stand-alone legislation, and we'll see whether Republicans are willing to vote against such an overwhelmingly popular measure. But overall, Senate Democrats were remarkably successful at going big.

ADVERTISEMENT

There was, however, another source of gratification, at least for nerds like me: the stupidity level in the economic debate was astonishingly low compared with what went down in 2009-2010. Where were the cable TV ranters and op-ed writers predicting hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, frogs, boils and three days of darkness?

OK, there were a few of them out there, but they were hard to find. Instead, the usual suspects were preoccupied with the threat of cancel culture.

There was, of course, debate about the appropriateness of the Biden plan — mainly about whether it was so big that it would overheat the economy, causing inflation. But this dispute was like something out of another era: a real argument between smart, well-informed economists (all of whom, probably not accidentally, are more or less on the center left). When I debated Larry Summers — he's worried about overheating, I'm not — we were arguing from a shared set of facts and even a largely shared conceptual framework.

Indeed, I almost felt like pinching myself to be sure I was awake. This was what I thought I was signing up for all those years ago when I chose economics as a profession; instead, I mostly find myself arguing with zombies. So this was a nice break.

Of course, I'm right and Larry is wrong, although I would say that, wouldn't I? And time will tell.

For what it's worth, however, with the passage of the Biden plan the business economists regularly surveyed by Bloomberg have ratcheted up their forecasts for growth this year — and what they seem to be predicting is a Goldilocks economy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Let me explain: The average forecast calls for 5.5 percent growth from the fourth quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2021. That sounds like a lot. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that in late 2020 we had a 3 percent "output gap" — a shortfall below the economy's potential. And growth is chasing a moving target, because standard estimates say that the economy's potential is growing around 2 percent a year. So the average forecast says that by the end of this year we'll be just about at potential — not too cold, not too hot, but just right.

Some forecasts disagree, of course. Goldman Sachs is more optimistic (and so am I), predicting 7.7 percent growth. But Goldman also believes that the output gap is 6 percent, not 3. So they're also predicting Goldilocks.

Now, all forecasts are wrong. Also, some prices probably will spike because of temporary bottlenecks: prices of commodities like oil and copper have been surging.

Overall the next year is looking remarkably good. Any euphoria some of us might be feeling (but are economists even capable of euphoria?) will no doubt evaporate as tougher problems arise. But let's enjoy this Goldilocks moment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Quick Hits

I'm sometimes embarrassed at how much I use Excel. But it turns out to be a work of genius.

Democrats learned from the mistakes of the last crisis. Britain's Tories haven't.

Fox News couldn't be bothered to talk about stimulus, given the more pressing issue of Dr. Seuss.

Never mind oil and copper: There's a feta cheese shortage.

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

Lots of bad economics in the 70s, but some darn good musicYouTube

Actually, don't stop thinking about 2021Q4.

IN THE TIMES

'I've Never Seen Anything Like This': Chaos Strikes Global Shipping

The pandemic has disrupted international trade, driving up the cost of shipping goods and adding a fresh challenge to the global economic recovery.

By Peter S. Goodman, Alexandra Stevenson, Niraj Chokshi and Michael Corkery

Article Image

What 27 Special Interest Groups Said About the Stimulus Bill

The $1.9 trillion package includes provisions favored by a range of industry and advocacy groups.

By Alicia Parlapiano

Article Image

news analysis

To Juice the Economy, Biden Bets on the Poor

Mr. Biden's bottom-up $1.9 trillion aid package is a sharp reversal from the tax cut bill that was President Donald J. Trump's first big legislative victory.

By Jim Tankersley

Article Image

How Biden Is Trying to Help Working-Class Voters in Red-State Alabama

The president's support for the rights of unionizing Amazon workers delighted political organizers in Alabama who are hoping to build long-term Democratic momentum in a reliably red state.

By Astead W. Herndon

Article Image

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/