One story dominating my feeds today, so thought I would get into it.

n+1 Job Posting Gets People Both Mad and Defensive

n+1 did one of the most necessary and thankless tasks in media: post about a job opening and include the actual salary range. The number is above the median U.S. salary of $49,500, but the gig is in Brooklyn, which I can report from personal experience is considerably more expensive than the median place to live (which apparently is Cleveland?).

The strongest negative reactions were as predictable as they were understandable: this just doesn’t seem like enough for the responsibilities, n+1’s reputation, and the realities of trying to build a professional life and career in New York. The loudest defender of n+l responded to these criticisms with perhaps unadvised (and largely deleted) as far as I can tell) vitriol. (side note: I am not going to link to individual X posts here. If you are interested, you can search for n+1 and see the terrain quickly).

Today In Books

Sign up to Today In Books to receive daily news and miscellany from the world of books.

I have a little perspective to give on the subject of running an independent media organization that doesn’t fit neatly into “this salary is shameful” or the “It is what it is.” I am also going to assume for the moment that n+1 is not radically overpaying some top executive person somewhere or renting ungodly expensive office space, and of course if this is the case then those dollars should be redirected. And as a registered nonprofit, n+1 does not have some corporate overlord siphoning off dollars that could be used to raise the salaries of people working there.

The truth that bridges these extreme ends of responses is this: there is not much money in independent media. There is even less money for indie media that has a mission of some kind. And that is what n+1 is, and I have a ton of respect for them. My guess is that they are probably paying as much as they can across the board and wish they could pay more. To say that they should unionize is a nice sentiment, but that assumes that there are marginal dollars available to flow to employees from the corporation. For employees of The New York Times or Conde Nast, this is an on-going negotiation, as those companies, over decades, have built brands and businesses that can be quite profitable–and can be even more profitable if employee salaries are kept as low as they can be. I will go farther to say that a company should be profitable, if only because it allows for a margin of safety and the possibility of growth.

So if a company like n+1 simply cannot pay more, what to do? Should they….just stop operating? What is the next move? I don’t have an answer and neither do people bemoaning this job and other lower-paying full-time positions in media.

Nor does it feel right to shrug your shoulders and say them’s the breaks. Because I think we want people who care about arts and ideas to be able to build lives around their jobs. And we would like them to be able to do it without having family money or some other leg up not generally available. The answer to this question isn’t one of hiring policy or unionization or “you could always just go be a cop.”

A lot more of us need to pay for indie media. There is more money for employees when more people are paying for it. The dollars to be found for managing editors and junior publicists, and senior designers is not sitting on an untapped line on a ledger somewhere: it is in the quarterly reports of Meta, Netflix, Alphabet, TikTok, and Amazon.

Media dollars flow to where attention flows. If n+1 had 27% more subscribers, I bet that job would pay more. Maybe even 27% more. Dollars that come directly from readers are the most reliable and the most insulated from a sponsor walking a way or a tech company changing their terms. Five or ten dollars out of your pocket every month to whatever website or paper or journal or podcast that you care about makes a small difference, but a real one. The nice thing about supporting indie media is that it doesn’t take millions of people changing their habits. A thousand people kicking in and subscribing matters. For some places, hundreds matter, a couple dozen matters.

I believe n+1 is doing the best they can. I believe people balking at this level of pay really care. And I think neither n+1 or its critics today can do as much to change the game if there isn’t more support out there.

The post The Economics of Independent Media are Just Really Tough appeared first on Our Story Insight.

There may be turmoil in the financial markets, but Netflix continues to roll.

The streaming giant earned $10.5 billion in revenue and nearly $2.9 billion in net income in the first three months of the year, exceeding Wall Street’s forecasts, the company reported Thursday.

The announcement represents the kickoff to media earnings season, which is turning into an even more anxious affair than usual. Many media companies that rely heavily on advertising revenue are preparing for a difficult year ahead as marketers begin to pull back on spending amid uncertainty around tariffs.

Some analysts believe, however, that Netflix is something close to recession-proof, and should be able to weather any economic tumult, a point that the company underscored. The company said in a Thursday letter to shareholders that its “revenue and profit growth outlook remains solid,” and that it is not making any changes to its forecast for the year ahead.

Netflix’s co-chief executive Greg Peters said on the company’s earnings call that internal metrics — like subscriber retention and engagement — remained strong, and “things generally look stable.”

“We also take some comfort in the fact that entertainment historically has been pretty resilient in tougher economic times,” he continued. “Netflix specifically also has been generally quite resilient, and we haven’t seen any major impacts during those tougher times.”

Netflix shares were up more than 2 percent in aftermarket trading.

“Netflix will continue to be the default platform, and the last to be cut by the vast majority of users,” said John Conca, an analyst at Third Bridge.

Thursday’s earnings also represented the first time that Netflix didn’t disclose quarterly subscriber figures. The company said last year that it would prioritize other metrics, including time spent on the service, and financial targets like revenue and operating margin. Some industry observers believe Netflix stopped releasing quarterly subscriber updates as “the outlook on subscriber increases appeared stale,” said Ross Benes, an analyst at Emarketer.

“Netflix is part of a broader industry shift away from focusing on how many new viewers are obtained to focusing on how much money viewers are bringing in,” he continued. “Consumers can expect more price increases.”

Antenna, a subscription research firm, estimated that Netflix lost subscribers in the United States in the first quarter.

Still, Netflix attributed its 12.5 percent growth in revenue both to higher subscription prices and “membership growth.” At the end of 2024, Netflix said that it had roughly 301 million global subscribers.

The company also said it was buoyed by the performance of its out-of-nowhere hit “Adolescence,” which came from its United Kingdom team.

Though Netflix has had momentum for several years now, it does face intense competition from another streaming behemoth: YouTube. Netflix accounted for nearly 8 percent of TV viewing time in the United States in March, but that trailed YouTube’s share of 12 percent, according to Nielsen.

“The biggest opportunity we’ve got is actually going after the roughly 80 percent share of TV time that neither Netflix nor YouTube have today,” Mr. Peters said. “We think of that as a real immediate opportunity.”

In a public filing, the company also announced that Reed Hastings, a co-founder of the company and its former longtime chief executive, would become chairman and a nonexecutive director. Since Mr. Hastings stepped down as chief executive in 2023, he had been executive chairman.

The post Netflix Boasts That It’s Stable, Even in a Tough Economy appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Follow live updates on the Trump administration here.

Automakers can respond to President Trump’s new 25 percent tariffs on imported cars and parts in several ways. But all of them cost money and will lead to higher car prices, analysts say.

Manufacturers can try to move production from countries like Mexico to the United States. They can try to increase the number of cars they already make here. They can stop selling imported models, especially ones that are less profitable.

But whatever carmakers decide, car buyers can expect to pay more for new and used vehicles. Estimates vary widely and depend on the model, but the increase could range from around $3,000 for a car made in the United States to well over $10,000 for imported models.

Those figures do not take into account additional tariffs that Mr. Trump said he would announce next week to punish countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods. He has also said he would increase tariffs further if trading partners like Canada and the European Union raise tariffs in response to his auto tariffs, leading to an escalating tit-for-tat trade war.

“It’s going to be disruptive and expensive for American consumers for several years,” said Michael Cusumano, professor of management at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Mr. Trump has long brandished tariffs. But many auto executives had hoped that his threats were a negotiating tool. Mr. Trump dashed those hopes on Wednesday when he said at the White House that the tariffs were “100 percent” permanent.

Mr. Trump framed the tariffs as a way to bring car manufacturing back to the United States. The United Automobile Workers union agreed, saying automakers could reopen plants in places like Lordstown, Ohio, or expand production in cities like Warren, Mich., where auto workers have been laid off.

“It is now on the automakers, from the Big Three to Volkswagen and beyond, to bring back good union jobs to the U.S.,” Shawn Fain, the U.A.W. president, said in a statement Wednesday, referring to General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, owner of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram.

But relocating factories is costly and time consuming. Carmakers usually need at least two years to set up a new assembly line and ensure that the vehicles it produces meet quality standards. To fully avoid tariffs, they would also need to relocate devilishly complicated supply chains that often involve suppliers in dozens of countries.

Tariffs could encourage companies to choose locations in the United States instead of Mexico or Canada when they are contemplating where to expand production or build a new model. But choosing a site because of tariffs, and not because it is the most efficient place to manufacture, would come at a cost to consumers.

Some companies may hesitate to make those decisions, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, because they worry that Mr. Trump, despite assurances to the contrary, may change his mind. Or the next president could reverse his tariffs.

“What we hear from a lot of clients is, ‘How do we justify that capital expenditure without knowing if this is a long-term process?’” said Kevin Williams, a senior director at the law firm Clark Hill who specializes in trade. “You make that investment and two years from now they say, ‘Never mind.’”

Carmakers, several of which declined to comment, will probably avoid passing on the entire cost of the tariffs to consumers. If they raise prices too much, sales could plummet, leading to a death spiral of sinking revenue and rising costs. Economists worry that the financial disruption caused by tariffs could help provoke a recession.

Some carmakers have been stockpiling parts and finished cars before tariffs kick in, but that will hold down prices only for a while.

“Tariffs are just going to make people pay more for cars, and people will buy fewer cars,” said W.C. Benton, a professor of operations and supply chain management at Ohio State University.

New cars are already beyond the reach of many Americans — the average sale price these days is more than $48,000, according to Cox Automotive. Prices of used cars are also expected to rise, as they did during the pandemic, as more buyers look for affordable options.

Most automakers are not extremely profitable and have limited financial room to maneuver. General Motors, which is among the more profitable companies, had a net profit on sales last year of 3.2 percent. As a result, carmakers will have to pass much of the cost of tariffs on to their customers.

If so, tariffs could add $15,000 to the price of a Ram 1500 pickup, nearly $12,000 to a Toyota Tacoma pickup, $9,000 to a Subaru Forester S.U.V. and $6,000 to a Nissan Sentra sedan, according to estimates by iSeeCars, an online car buying site.

Some carmakers are already raising prices. Ferrari, whose Italian-made sports cars sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Thursday that it would increase prices by as much as 10 percent on some models in response to tariffs.

Automakers may stop selling some less profitable models, which tend to be smaller and more affordable. They will promote domestically made cars and trucks, many of which are larger and more expensive. All major carmakers, including foreign brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Honda and Toyota, have large factories in the United States.

But no cars will be exempt from tariffs because all have foreign-made parts, which typically account for at least a third of the vehicle’s value. That portion will be subject to a 25 percent tariff, according to the Trump administration.

“There’s no such thing as an American car,” said Simon Geale, an executive vice president at Proxima, a consulting firm that advises companies on procurement.

Some carmakers may avoid making big changes to their operations in response to the tariffs, betting that the consequences will be so severe that the Trump administration will have to backpedal.

“There’s going to be an incredible backlash from American consumers,” said Mr. Cusumano of M.I.T. “I would hope there would be some response to that.”

Ana Swanson contributed reporting.

The post Trump’s Tariffs Leave Automakers With Tough, Expensive Choices appeared first on Our Story Insight.