5 ms·

> Again, my comments are more about how people actually use the web, rather than how they should use the web. Which is why I addressed each of your points, bef

> Again, my comments are more about how people actually use the web, rather than how they should use the web. Which is why I addressed each of your points, before adding a new point. > whereas when you write: "But is that really what we want to be supporting?" In this case, I was adding a new point. People DO go back and engage with content more than once. The assertion that people don't do that is wrong. Your reply alone is evidence of that. The additional point I was attempting to make is that bad content is "one and done." Not only does bad content leave the reader unmoved, it is quickly forgotten, usually anonymous, and does nothing to build a relationship with the reader. I'm not sure why you bring up newspapers. 1/3rd of a cent for a newspaper article "view" is in no way sustainable.

manicdee 11y ago
The content on a comment page is each individual comment. Why would I come back to reply to a comment more than once? As for newspapers: today's Sydney Mornig Herald is a few dozen pages, with multiple articles per page. Let's call that 100 articles (current affairs, technology, finance, sports). It costs about a dollar per day. So each article is worth about a cent, for a paper newspaper delivered to your house. The same articles on the web at 1/3 of a cent each read doesn't sound beyond the realms of realistic pricing for a sustainable distribution. Of course I would prefer to spend my money on a non-Murdoch paper. But that gets into politics rather than economics.
- JacobJans 11y ago
  > As for newspapers: today's Sydney Mornig Herald is a few dozen pages, with multiple articles per page. Let's call that 100 articles (current affairs, technology, finance, sports). It costs about a dollar per day. So each article is worth about a cent, for a paper newspaper delivered to your house. > The same articles on the web at 1/3 of a cent each read doesn't sound beyond the realms of realistic pricing for a sustainable distribution. That demonstrates perfectly how the micropayment model is fundamentally different than the subscription model. The assumption with micropayments is that you're paying only for what you view – not for everything the website produces. With a subscription, you're paying for everything, whether or not your read it. Say you 10 read articles in the paper each day. That works out to $0.10 an article, not $.01 an article, if you're being charged just for what you read. A huge difference. $0.10 would possibly be sustainable for micropayments, especially if you guaranteed the publisher a minimum payment each month. 1/3rd of a cent is simply out of the realm of reality – unless you're agreeing to pay, in advance, for all of the articles they produce. In which case, I don't think you're talking about micropayments anymore.
  - manicdee 11y ago
    The newspaper still paid for those articles to be written even if I didn't read them. Thus $0.01/article is still a fair pricing.
mattlutze 11y ago
> People DO go back and engage with content more than once. The assertion that people don't do that is wrong. Your reply alone is evidence of that. I would like to see the the empirical support for this. Indicated by data collected from advertisers, internet content consumption is driven largely through social media platforms and mobile direct messaging. Shareaholic's report from the beginning of this year [1] indicates Facebook drives a quarter of hits to sites. Social platforms and mobile applications thrive on new content. If people are getting to their content through social / mobile apps, and those places maintain eyeshare by presenting fresh, new stuff, it would lead that those platforms de-emphasize old content, not pushing users to return to it. https://blog.shareaholic.com/social-media-traffic-trends-01-2015/ https://blog.shareaholic.com/social-media-traffic-trends-01-...

manicdee 11y ago

The content on a comment page is each individual comment. Why would I come back to reply to a comment more than once? As for newspapers: today's Sydney Mornig Herald is a few dozen pages, with multiple articles per page. Let's call that 100 articles (current affairs, technology, finance, sports). It costs about a dollar per day. So each article is worth about a cent, for a paper newspaper delivered to your house. The same articles on the web at 1/3 of a cent each read doesn't sound beyond the realms of realistic pricing for a sustainable distribution. Of course I would prefer to spend my money on a non-Murdoch paper. But that gets into politics rather than economics.

JacobJans 11y ago
> As for newspapers: today's Sydney Mornig Herald is a few dozen pages, with multiple articles per page. Let's call that 100 articles (current affairs, technology, finance, sports). It costs about a dollar per day. So each article is worth about a cent, for a paper newspaper delivered to your house. > The same articles on the web at 1/3 of a cent each read doesn't sound beyond the realms of realistic pricing for a sustainable distribution. That demonstrates perfectly how the micropayment model is fundamentally different than the subscription model. The assumption with micropayments is that you're paying only for what you view – not for everything the website produces. With a subscription, you're paying for everything, whether or not your read it. Say you 10 read articles in the paper each day. That works out to $0.10 an article, not $.01 an article, if you're being charged just for what you read. A huge difference. $0.10 would possibly be sustainable for micropayments, especially if you guaranteed the publisher a minimum payment each month. 1/3rd of a cent is simply out of the realm of reality – unless you're agreeing to pay, in advance, for all of the articles they produce. In which case, I don't think you're talking about micropayments anymore.
- manicdee 11y ago
  The newspaper still paid for those articles to be written even if I didn't read them. Thus $0.01/article is still a fair pricing.

mattlutze 11y ago

> People DO go back and engage with content more than once. The assertion that people don't do that is wrong. Your reply alone is evidence of that. I would like to see the the empirical support for this. Indicated by data collected from advertisers, internet content consumption is driven largely through social media platforms and mobile direct messaging. Shareaholic's report from the beginning of this year [1] indicates Facebook drives a quarter of hits to sites. Social platforms and mobile applications thrive on new content. If people are getting to their content through social / mobile apps, and those places maintain eyeshare by presenting fresh, new stuff, it would lead that those platforms de-emphasize old content, not pushing users to return to it. https://blog.shareaholic.com/social-media-traffic-trends-01-2015/ https://blog.shareaholic.com/social-media-traffic-trends-01-...