It also directly affects their business.

If people are suffering from subscription overload, they could be less likely to consider a Bloomberg subscription than they would normally.

I get that for most people a Bloomberg subscription will never be on their radar, but between those people and the "must have Bloomberg" crowd, there will be a grey area of people who would really like to have it and can't quite justify it, to those who are sort-of interested and might get around to it if other things in their life align. Those are the people Bloomberg is working hardest to get to sign up. Therefore, if subscription fatigue is showing up as a reason that their subscriptions aren't growing as much as they'd like, looking into questions like "is this a problem?" and "what can be done about it?" is entirely within their wheelhouse.

It's not like Bloomberg is one of the subscription services that have popped up in the last 10 years. They're a "legacy" org at this point.

Also aren't the writers separate from people who are developing the website and their subscription offerings?

I see this all the time when news agencies decry privacy on the web, yet their websites are often one of the worst examples for any kind of digital privacy.

How are they doing self-criticism when the article doesn't even mention themselves? They mention Netflix and all the other companies as if their website wasn't an adfest that on top of that requires a subscription. There is nothing to applaud here.

I absolutely applaud it, but it's still ironic!

It's not like rain on your wedding day.

Haha I see even more comments how pious they are to have managed to have max 2 or even zero subscriptions!

It's great that this is the top comment. It's sad but unsurprising that the second to top comment is a thread chain about how ironic this article is.