3 ms·

I would love to have an option between flat rate and non-expiring prepaid. Let me pay e.g 100$ into an account and subtract some cents for every article I read.

by smoe 11y ago

I would love to have an option between flat rate and non-expiring prepaid. Let me pay e.g 100$ into an account and subtract some cents for every article I read. Or maybe I'm just weird with my dislike of subscriptions in general:) I'd be happily spending the equivalent of a annual nyt subscription per year but I'm not willing to pay that amount to a sole news site. As it is, everybody tries to do a vendor lock-in while whining that people are not walking into or get out of that trap.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Interesting concept: a centralized content micropayment service. You pay in ten bucks a month, a little gets taken out every time you visit various sites. I like it. Not sure how to get enough vendor participation, though. I imagine the way to go would be to pair up with one of the large ad networks -- you could even work it where if you pay, the ads don't come. If you're not in the system, you get ad-ed like everybody else.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  This is what flattr.com does - my understanding is that it's far from having success.
- smoe 11y ago
  About two year ago, I read a blog post by someone who tried to work on a centralized payment service with german/swiss/austrian publishers. Unfortunately I can't find the link at the moment, but as I remember his conclusion was, that they were not willing to try something like this at all. Everyone wanted to have the precious user data for themselves alone. Which correlates with the experience I had working for a big publisher: News papers aren't just competitors, they are antagonists. My prediction is, if centralized content micropayment service is ever going to happen, it won't come from the publishers, but a big player with enough leverage like Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. Then the publisher will write outrage articles about how unfair and anti press freedom the cut they get is. Until they adapt silently. Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, but I doubt that the proud traditional companies have learnt much from what happened in the music industry. Which on the bright side might be good for new media startups and different approaches to journalism.

by smoe 11y ago

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

Interesting concept: a centralized content micropayment service. You pay in ten bucks a month, a little gets taken out every time you visit various sites. I like it. Not sure how to get enough vendor participation, though. I imagine the way to go would be to pair up with one of the large ad networks -- you could even work it where if you pay, the ads don't come. If you're not in the system, you get ad-ed like everybody else.

mdpopescu 11y ago
This is what flattr.com does - my understanding is that it's far from having success.
smoe 11y ago
About two year ago, I read a blog post by someone who tried to work on a centralized payment service with german/swiss/austrian publishers. Unfortunately I can't find the link at the moment, but as I remember his conclusion was, that they were not willing to try something like this at all. Everyone wanted to have the precious user data for themselves alone. Which correlates with the experience I had working for a big publisher: News papers aren't just competitors, they are antagonists. My prediction is, if centralized content micropayment service is ever going to happen, it won't come from the publishers, but a big player with enough leverage like Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. Then the publisher will write outrage articles about how unfair and anti press freedom the cut they get is. Until they adapt silently. Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, but I doubt that the proud traditional companies have learnt much from what happened in the music industry. Which on the bright side might be good for new media startups and different approaches to journalism.