The Verge Explains Why, After 13 Years, It's Offering a 'Subscription' Option for Its Supporters (theverge.com) 27
"Okay, we're doing this," begins a new announcement at The Verge:
Today we're launching a Verge subscription that lets you get rid of a bunch of ads, gets you unlimited access to our top-notch reporting and analysis across the site and our killer premium newsletters, and generally lets you support independent tech journalism in a world of sponsored influencer content. It'll cost $7 / month or $50 / year — and for a limited time, if you sign up for the annual plan, we'll send you an absolutely stunning print edition of our CONTENT GOBLINS series, with very fun new photography and design... A surprising number of you have asked us to launch something like this, and we're happy to deliver. If you don't want to pay, rest assured that big chunks of The Verge will remain free — we're thinking about subscriptions a lot differently than everyone else...
If you're a Verge reader, you know we've been covering massive, fundamental changes to how the internet works for years now. Most major social media platforms are openly hostile to links, huge changes to search have led to the death of small websites, and everything is covered in a layer of AI slop and weird scams. The algorithmic media ecosystem is now openly hostile to the kind of rigorous, independent journalism we want to do.
A few years ago, we decided the only real way to survive all this was to stand apart and bet on our own website so that we could remain independent of these platforms and their algorithms. We didn't want to write stories to chase Google Search trends or because we thought they'd do well on social media. And we definitely didn't want to compromise our famously strict ethics policy to accept brand endorsement deals from the companies we cover, which almost all of our competitors in the creator economy are forced to do in order to run sustainable businesses...
[W]e intend to keep making this thing together for a long, long time. So many of you like The Verge that we've actually gotten a shocking number of notes from people asking how they can pay to support our work. It's no secret that lots of great websites and publications have gone under over the past few years as the open web falls apart, and it's clear that directly supporting the creators you love is a big part of how everyone gets to stay working on the modern internet. At the same time, we didn't want to simply paywall the entire site — it's a tragedy that traditional journalism is retreating behind paywalls while nonsense spreads across platforms for free.
The print premium for subscribers is described as a "beautiful / deranged print product" that's drawn from a series of articles "about what Google had done to the web, capped off by a feature about search engine optimization titled 'The People Who Ruined the Internet.'" But it ships with a satirical cover that instead proclaims it as "The Verge Guide to Search Engine Optimization". A tongue-in-check announcement explains: [A] year has passed, and we've had a change of heart. Maybe search engine optimization is actually a good thing. Maybe appeasing the search algorithm is not only a sustainable strategy for building a loyal audience, but also a strategic way to plan and produce content. What are journalists, if not content creators? Anyway, SEO community, consider this our apology. And what better way to say "our bad, your industry is not a cesspool of AI slop but a brilliant vision of what a useful internet could look like" than collecting all the things we've learned in one handy print magazine? Which is why I'm proud to introduce The Verge Guide to Search Engine Optimization: All the Tips, Tricks, Hints, Schemes, and Techniques for Promoting High-Quality Content!
Whoops — slip off the cover and the real title appears: "CONTENT GOBLINS" (written in green slime). Again, it's "an anthology of stories about 'content' and the people who 'make' it." In very Verge fashion, we are meeting the moment where the internet has been overrun by AI garbage by publishing a beautifully designed, limited edition print product. (Also, the last time we printed a magazine, it won a very prestigious design award.) Content Goblins collects some of our best stories over the past couple years, capturing the cynical push for the world's great art and journalism to be reduced into units that can be packaged, distributed, and consumed on the internet. Consider Content Goblins as our resistance to that movement. With terrific new art and photography, we're making the case that great reporting is vital and enduring — and worth paying for.
This gorgeous, grotesque magazine can be yours if you commit to an annual subscription to The Verge — while supplies last.
If you're a Verge reader, you know we've been covering massive, fundamental changes to how the internet works for years now. Most major social media platforms are openly hostile to links, huge changes to search have led to the death of small websites, and everything is covered in a layer of AI slop and weird scams. The algorithmic media ecosystem is now openly hostile to the kind of rigorous, independent journalism we want to do.
A few years ago, we decided the only real way to survive all this was to stand apart and bet on our own website so that we could remain independent of these platforms and their algorithms. We didn't want to write stories to chase Google Search trends or because we thought they'd do well on social media. And we definitely didn't want to compromise our famously strict ethics policy to accept brand endorsement deals from the companies we cover, which almost all of our competitors in the creator economy are forced to do in order to run sustainable businesses...
[W]e intend to keep making this thing together for a long, long time. So many of you like The Verge that we've actually gotten a shocking number of notes from people asking how they can pay to support our work. It's no secret that lots of great websites and publications have gone under over the past few years as the open web falls apart, and it's clear that directly supporting the creators you love is a big part of how everyone gets to stay working on the modern internet. At the same time, we didn't want to simply paywall the entire site — it's a tragedy that traditional journalism is retreating behind paywalls while nonsense spreads across platforms for free.
The print premium for subscribers is described as a "beautiful / deranged print product" that's drawn from a series of articles "about what Google had done to the web, capped off by a feature about search engine optimization titled 'The People Who Ruined the Internet.'" But it ships with a satirical cover that instead proclaims it as "The Verge Guide to Search Engine Optimization". A tongue-in-check announcement explains: [A] year has passed, and we've had a change of heart. Maybe search engine optimization is actually a good thing. Maybe appeasing the search algorithm is not only a sustainable strategy for building a loyal audience, but also a strategic way to plan and produce content. What are journalists, if not content creators? Anyway, SEO community, consider this our apology. And what better way to say "our bad, your industry is not a cesspool of AI slop but a brilliant vision of what a useful internet could look like" than collecting all the things we've learned in one handy print magazine? Which is why I'm proud to introduce The Verge Guide to Search Engine Optimization: All the Tips, Tricks, Hints, Schemes, and Techniques for Promoting High-Quality Content!
Whoops — slip off the cover and the real title appears: "CONTENT GOBLINS" (written in green slime). Again, it's "an anthology of stories about 'content' and the people who 'make' it." In very Verge fashion, we are meeting the moment where the internet has been overrun by AI garbage by publishing a beautifully designed, limited edition print product. (Also, the last time we printed a magazine, it won a very prestigious design award.) Content Goblins collects some of our best stories over the past couple years, capturing the cynical push for the world's great art and journalism to be reduced into units that can be packaged, distributed, and consumed on the internet. Consider Content Goblins as our resistance to that movement. With terrific new art and photography, we're making the case that great reporting is vital and enduring — and worth paying for.
This gorgeous, grotesque magazine can be yours if you commit to an annual subscription to The Verge — while supplies last.
I haven't looked at The Verge in about a year (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm much happier for it. Seriously, they're just nothing but outrage bait nonsense.
I don't remember what the article was, but it was really suspicious "coverage" or some startup, and a lot of the thread was uhm, skeptical about it being a transparent ad. The editor got in the thread basically being like "if you don't like it, then why are you here?" and I . . . never went back.
Other sites cover the actually important things they occasionally cover and do a much better job.
I will not be sad at all if that bet on themselves ultimately doesn't work out and they just go away.
Re: (Score:2)
There's exactly one real reporter at The Verge- Tom Warren. Everyone else is just a political activist thinly disguised as reporters.
Re: (Score:1)
And I'm much happier for it. Seriously, they're just nothing but outrage bait nonsense.
I don't remember what the article was, but it was really suspicious "coverage" or some startup, and a lot of the thread was uhm, skeptical about it being a transparent ad. The editor got in the thread basically being like "if you don't like it, then why are you here?" and I . . . never went back.
Other sites cover the actually important things they occasionally cover and do a much better job.
I will not be sad at all if that bet on themselves ultimately doesn't work out and they just go away.
That story you told seems a common theme on online discourse. There was a musician's forum I spent more time on than I should have over the years that went a similar route. They changed formats, hired a company to spin up a completely custom site that was terrible both for usability and in the fact that it dumped historical data that people really did use and appreciate (user reviews of equipment), and on top of it was completely unstable. When the users, en masse, suggested it was a bad move, the folks in
Re: (Score:2)
A year?? The Verge was utter shit [youtube.com] SIX years ago.
The community, rightly so, ROASTED them for their incompetence.
Then excuses [twitter.com] started:
Their "PC Build Guide" was SO bad that even Linus (LTT) offered to help! [twitter.com]
So what did they do? Admit they fucked up and take responsibility?
No, th
Re: (Score:1)
Personally I'm on the verge of quitting The Verge, too. Yesterday it irked me how they intentionally buried the o1 announcement and headlined Genie 2. Despite the not so subtle attempts to play whatever game that was, the o1 coverage still ended up #3 in the most popular list. I don't even feel like unpacking all of the ulterior motives and back room dealings that likely involved. It reminded me a bit of that time the media collectively decided to ignore Trump, hoping that would make him go away. Nope. Obj
I like reporting with ethics and principles (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, how I feel journalism aught to be done doesn't make the money to support it magically appear in my bank account. I wish The Verge the best of luck, but it's hard to compete against free. I suppose it's at least good they're not just throwing up a paywall and telling non-subscribers to pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I read articles from them via links from outside sources. But I actually had to look up who they were to know that... wish them luck.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, how I feel journalism aught to be done doesn't make the money to support it magically appear in my bank account. I wish The Verge the best of luck, but it's hard to compete against free. I suppose it's at least good they're not just throwing up a paywall and telling non-subscribers to pound sand.
I don't think "aught" means what you think it means...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
they make lots of money from ad revenue. The problem isn't revenue, it's that the upper class owners are insatiably greedy and incompetent
yet another example of classism and market corruption in action
Re: (Score:2)
ought
Re: (Score:3)
Something new in lawncare? I think?
Like Feng Shui but all about how to lay out the lawn, get the individual blades to grow in the most effective and beneficial direction
Also includes a lot of fertilizer stuff.
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
The Verge.
The Atlantic
The Daily Beast.
All the same. I think they should pay me $7/month to read their stuff.
But wait, for you 5 "independent authors" who write all their stuff, let's pick a story, like the Thompson murder.
You still can't get the three words right that were "written" on the bullet casings. Is it "defend" or is it "delay". Nobody can say for sure. But you all published it.
You still think that the LEOs saying he wrote on it with a Sharpie is right. Right? But they haven't a clue as to what anyone wrote, nor that a permanent marker ink would survive being fired from the barrel of a pistol with a supressor. Nobody can say for sure. But you all published it.
He smiled at a girl and lifted up his hoodie. Since you're looking at the wrong guy that's pretty likely. Nobody can say for sure. But you published it.
LEO's lie. They self-agrandize. They are puffery incarnate. They can't solve any crime unless they can "break into a phone." And here we are and they have nothing. Nobody can say for sure. But you all published it.
E-Bikes that were City E-BIkes, but oh wait no they weren't. Starbucks coffee with DNA or fingerprints (both of which FBI forensic experts have denounced). Nobody can say for sure. But you all published it.
Send me my $7/month and stop repeating crap you haven't bothered to check out, vet, verify, or inspect.
All of you. This isn't a "I hate mass media conspiracy" but rather if you won't do your jobs go greet people at Wal-Mart and have a great day. Still waiting for my $7/month. Maybe I'll buy a [something cheap].
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:5, Interesting)
nor that a permanent marker ink would survive being fired from the barrel of a pistol with a supressor[sic]
Can't imagine why sharpie ink would be removed from a cartridge case by firing. Cartridge cases experience heat and pressure, sure, but there is no solvent in a chamber. The temperature of a fired cartridge isn't high enough to burn off sharpie ink. The case doesn't get abraded very much during loading or extraction; firearms are designed to minimize friction for reliable operation. In a properly working firearm the outside of the case sees only a minimal amount of gas from firing; firearms and cartridge ammunition are designed to not allow hot gas to escape past the cartridge neck, and suppressors don't normally change that. So I can't think of a mechanism that would remove dried ink from a cartridge.
Hand-loaders sometimes mark cartridge cases for various reasons. I've never done it, although I have hand-loaded brass ammo. Here is a photo of one person's results with sharpie ink on 9mm: Best Sharpie for Brass [reddit.com].
So while you may have some points about reporting, etc., there is no reason to be skeptical about a claim that legible writing was observed based on the notion that it's somehow impossible for sharpie ink to survive. It can and does.
Excuse me...according to who exactly? (Score:2)
...unlimited access to our top-notch reporting and analysis across the site and our killer premium newsletters...
Who told these fellas that `top-notch' and `killer premium' are appropriate adjectives to use here?
I have [serious] doubts...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"These problems have existed before online publications..."
But the notable trend for some time now has been the dismantling of integrity in every aspect of our lives. The US literally just elected the most corrupt candidate in our lifetimes, one of the most corrupt people on the planet, one supported by a thoroughly corrupt religious group that claims ownership of "absolute morality", and it is assembling an administration where the primary qualifier is corruption and lack of personal integrity.
It is a fai
Pay Me To Read My Opinion (Score:1)
B*ll*cks. (Score:2)
top notch reporting? LOL (Score:2, Funny)
The Verge has always been fake reporting for profit. I support this move, mostly out of the hope that it kills the Verge. Nowhere more than the Verge is it so obvious that so called "jounalists" and "reviewers" post corporate speeds and feeds about products they've never even seen.
Slowly but surely news will go behind a paywall (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just these niche news outlets. Even CNN is slowly boiling the frog by making certain headlines subscription only. CNN's cable news empire is crumbling due to cord cutting so they probably had no choice.
They're boiling the frog because if they all went subscription only, it would raise a ruckus.
The news outlets have been trying to do this for years now.
Its a form of enshittification by slowly twiddling what is being offered and making it worse.
Reading the news online at the BBC is still free, but I wonder how long that will last.
Google still has its news aggregator, but more and more articles you click on there are behind a paywall. Also Google gets to know what you clicked on.
Eventually you won't be able to read the latest headlines online without having a subscription or two.
I suppose you could watch local television stations and put up with their ad load, but the news won't be in-depth most of the time unless you watch PBS. But, the incoming regime wants to severely cut PBS's grants from the government, so PBS could become subscription only eventually if member donations can't support it.
So where does this lead?
In the United States, I suspect the powers that be want a less informed citizenry. When people are unaware of what's going on in the world, it is much easier for corporations and the government to pull the wool over their eyes. They won't vote intelligently, and we will be further on our way to authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
In the United States, I suspect the powers that be want a less informed citizenry.
Not quite. The "powers that be" simply wanted ONE party in power, just one, and anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor, an insurrectionist, etc etc.
The bullshit peddlers are running out of willing eyeballs and ears.
Fuck them. All of them. They've nearly caused a civil war in this country. We went to war with Spain because of them.
What, you think Yellow Journalism is new? Hah. Pulizer Prize is named for someone who along with Hearst pulled us into a needless war, all based on their papers' twisted
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States, I suspect the powers that be want a less informed citizenry.
Hot take: The "powers that be" are not some nebulous group of elites with a clandestine agenda, they are the very citizenry that continues to demonstrate that what they want is not to be informed, but rather to be entertained, and the news organizations comply.
And queue ads in 5 years ... (Score:2)
> that lets you get rid of a bunch of ads
For now.
Queue ads in ~5 years as they try to hold onto the few remaining readers/viewers they DO have.