I have trouble believing any of these reasons. You don't pay for news because you can get it for free elsewhere. You don't have to be all high and mighty about it.
This reminds me of users which complain about feature X. But when you fix feature X nothing changes and they move on to complaining about feature Y. People are very bad at knowing what they want.
I can vouch for H: The incessant upselling. I'd like to pay for the Economist, but last time I unsubscribed, they forced me to wait on phone hold for a half hour, then go through another half hour of verbal upselling spiel, like "have you considered changing to a biannual subscription?". Never again.
I'd pay for news, even bad ones. I see it like a donation to the Red Cross or something.
My experience and reasons for not paying anymore are similar. Used to pay for The Guardian for some time, but when they started pestering me about a subscription renewal the whole thing felt a lot less classy. Now it suddenly was about me and not news anymore.
Me too: never again. I would pay for anonymous vouchers or similar where I'm not identifiable to the newspaper, though.
> This reminds me of users which complain about feature X. But when you fix feature X nothing changes and they move on to complaining about feature Y. People are very bad at knowing what they want.
> You don't pay for news because you can get it for free elsewhere.
There's also just too much news these days and most of it isn't important. It's saturated. Maybe if we cut down on the number of media outlets. You used to just buy 1-2 newspapers at most but the equivalent now is likely 5-10. And each 1 would be 2x as thick.
This reminds me of users which complain about feature X. But when you fix feature X nothing changes and they move on to complaining about feature Y. People are very bad at knowing what they want.