3 ms·

So Paywalls and app.net failed. I can think of heaps of better ideas for packaging news and other content. I would like to see some of the lessons we have lear

So Paywalls and app.net failed. I can think of heaps of better ideas for packaging news and other content. I would like to see some of the lessons we have learnt about Freemium applied to news. First you have a base level of great content available for free for everybody. You build a very large user base. Then for those people who want to dig deeper, you have premium content. Those users who really value your service won't mind spending a little money to engage more. Those who engage a lot - pay a lot, but it's their hobby, their past time. they don't mind. It sound horrible when you spell it out explicitly, but like everything you need present well. 10c to read an article 1 hour earlier than everybody else. 10c to comment on an article. 5c to read the full transcripts of interviews. 10c to download full res photos. 5c to read full bio's of the people involved in the article. You could spend $20 a day interacting / socialising / enjoying your news and entertainment.

jgianakopoulos 11y ago
I'm fairly certain this has all been tried. The New York Times and many other news outlets do have a freemium model of sorts. You are allowed access to 10 news articles a month, and after you reach your limit you can pay for more. Guess how many people subscribe to the Times and are willing to actually pay to read another article? <830,000 worldwide. Paywalls have been implemented, monetization models have been tweaked - you can't change habits. People are habituated to getting their content online for free. They're not willing to pay for it in the vast majority of cases. If we're talking online news content, there's just a ton of different outlets and I don't see people being willing to pay individually on an article-by-article basis. Maybe if you aggregated content under one subscription model (like the music industry does wit Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) and distributed revenue to publishers based on readership, it could work for a small minority of consumers. But even that seems like a stretch.
- jay_kyburz 11y ago
  Ok, I just went and had a look at the Times website you minimum subscription is around $80USD a year but you can up to around 500USD a year. Lets round 800,000 at 100US a year is 80MM right? Thats a shit tone of journalists employed if you ask me.
  - thedz 11y ago
    If you actually read the article, it says that the NY Times' operating costs were $1.48 Billion last year. $80 Million would cover a very minor portion of that.

jgianakopoulos 11y ago

I'm fairly certain this has all been tried. The New York Times and many other news outlets do have a freemium model of sorts. You are allowed access to 10 news articles a month, and after you reach your limit you can pay for more. Guess how many people subscribe to the Times and are willing to actually pay to read another article? <830,000 worldwide. Paywalls have been implemented, monetization models have been tweaked - you can't change habits. People are habituated to getting their content online for free. They're not willing to pay for it in the vast majority of cases. If we're talking online news content, there's just a ton of different outlets and I don't see people being willing to pay individually on an article-by-article basis. Maybe if you aggregated content under one subscription model (like the music industry does wit Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) and distributed revenue to publishers based on readership, it could work for a small minority of consumers. But even that seems like a stretch.

jay_kyburz 11y ago
Ok, I just went and had a look at the Times website you minimum subscription is around $80USD a year but you can up to around 500USD a year. Lets round 800,000 at 100US a year is 80MM right? Thats a shit tone of journalists employed if you ask me.
- thedz 11y ago
  If you actually read the article, it says that the NY Times' operating costs were $1.48 Billion last year. $80 Million would cover a very minor portion of that.