I really engaged with the three online journal articles on paywall. It’s a contemporary issue that isn’t bought up in the mainstream context. The Times article “The New York Times is Now Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers” really got my attention. I started to contemplate how relevant this topic is regarding publications I read today. It’s inevitable to think some if not most publications still solely run on advertisements - such as the daily MX or the sydney take on Vice Magazine, Sneaky Magazine. These publications are free to the public and each issues are packed with advertisements.
In regards to Sneaky Mag the dynamic of their publication is a lot more niche compared to the Times regarding the amount of people who contribute to each issue and the target market and this is a huge factor to the finances of the publication. In specifics of advertisement being their main source of funds, It would be easier for the magazine to get enough advertisements in each issue because the magazine has established a specific aesthetics. A specific aesthetic the readers agree to, making the magazine a perfect platform for specific brands with similar aesthetics to advertise their label.
With the digital transition, I understand that businesses have different platforms to advertise eliminating the more traditional forms of advertisements - e.g. print but as long as there are still printed publications, prints are still very relevant and should not be ruled out.
With the extensive consumer culture we actively participate in today, It’s inevitable to believe paywall to be a logical conclusion to the issue. It’s the cycle of ‘people want this therefore they will pay for it”, even if there is a online platform to obtain it illegally, things like magazines and editorials are unobtainable online or do not have the same quality online and therefore people will purchase them.