[blakesterz]

I can only guess... when you buy the actual paper there's still ads. In the end they are an advertising company. They write things to increase circulation (hits and copies) so they can get more people to see more ads. That's how it's always worked. That "subscribe and you won't see ads" probably makes no sense at all to company that spent decades selling paying subscribers printed ads. People spend money to buy print ads, why wouldn't they mind paying money to see ads on their electronic device as well? They (The Times) and most subscribers probably don't think it's any big deal to pay to see more ads.

[moneil971]

For most publications, the newsstand sales are a minuscule amount of income - subscriptions are a bit more (and help them plan budgets), but ads is how they keep the lights on. But it’s harder and harder to do that bc no one wants to pay for quality reporting and fact checking when they can get rumors and opinions for free on any clickbait website that pays writers pennies and has fired their fact checkers and copy editors. If you truly want quality journalism, pick the publications you don’t want to lose and subscribe - and know that the ads are what keep the cost low enough for the average person to get reliable news.