Ask HN: Is Pando doomed?
For a while it seemed like PandoDaily might rise to the level of some the big tech news sites (recode, TechCrunch, Ars Technica). Heck they even got mentioned on season 1 of Silicon Valley.
But they have put up a pay wall and now charge $10 a month for access, which seems outrageously high given that is the same amount the Economist asks for.
It seems to me that within a year or two they will likely be defunct.
4 comments
Pando, like so many publishers, doesn't understand what the market will bear - or how to deliver solid UX. Although I'm curious how that paywall is working out, I doubt it's doing very well. Many visitors have probably replaced Pando with content from elsewhere already. I wonder why a publisher won't innovate with advertisers instead of users - create static, non-tracking, unintrusive ads and tell advertisers that they are protecting the user experience instead of selling out access to their visitor's metadata and profiles. Sell that to advertisers until they get their heads out of the sand. No, I won't ask someone for a Pando link, support the paywall approach or share Pando content with others. I'm sure that I'm an acceptable loss for their bottom line - at least for now.
> create static, non-tracking, unintrusive ads and tell advertisers that they are protecting the user experience instead of selling out access to their visitor's metadata and profiles.
I'd subscribe to that, assuming a reasonable price. However, I assume publishers have done the math, and we lose.
I'd subscribe to that, assuming a reasonable price. However, I assume publishers have done the math, and we lose.
I wonder if the math is a bit fuzzy and skewed toward the current ad model though? The ad industry is amock IMO and unfortunately publishers are paying the price. Maybe Pando has enough loyal subscribers who will pay their subscription fee, but to me it looks like a pipe dream. Ads could still work I think, but only if adverts come to grips with why ad blockers are on the rise in the first place. I really believe many ad block users would allow ads if the tracking in-our-face approach stopped - not to mention malware. Probably won't happen.
I'm happy to hear this here because I finally got rid of Adsense on my site in favor of direct-sold banners. My main reasoning was that the retargeted/network purchased ads were not relevant to my content or not of the quality I want associated with my brand.
When I think of my favorite magazines (which cost money and have ads) the ads are almost a part of the content and I want to look at them. So I wanted to try and create that sort of ad quality for my readers; relevant, nice looking ads that aren't creepy.
When I think of my favorite magazines (which cost money and have ads) the ads are almost a part of the content and I want to look at them. So I wanted to try and create that sort of ad quality for my readers; relevant, nice looking ads that aren't creepy.
I think you have the right solution. I whitelist any site that takes this approach. If everyone did this, ad-tech would be forced to change and publishers would benefit from visitors who appreciate the efforts and better UX. The web could actually become fast.
Oh. Those are ads. :) Nicely done.
Pando has been doomed for the past year and I am genuinely surprised it still exists, especially since TheNextWeb and GigaOm, which had actual readers, died badly.
The Next Web experimented with a pro account that removed ads. That has been discontinued but the site is still very much alive.
When is the last time anyone saw a Pando post on the front page of HN? True, what Pando has set up is not as strict as the FT (which appears to have an impermeable paywall), but I suspect very few people are even seeing their content in the first place.
Using Google you can get past FT's paywall