3 ms·

The response to this by the members of this community is very interesting. On the one hand, there have been many calls and support for micropayments for content

The response to this by the members of this community is very interesting. On the one hand, there have been many calls and support for micropayments for content. Here is a publisher offering access to their articles for a low cost. The response? People want to "fix" the issue, instead of respecting the publisher. They are offering low cost way to view the content mostly ad-free. Isn't this what we should, as readers, hope for? An alternative to ads that is low cost, and still supports the publication? What am I missing here?

godzillabrennus 11y ago
Publishing written content is not a good business to be in these days. Just as a decade ago the music industry faced a cultural shift now the publishing industry is transitioning. The gist is that this kind of looked at as an entitlement not a service worth paying to have. Basically, the fourth estate is a zombie about to be put down unless something drastic happens.
- tmalsburg2 11y ago
  That users feel entitled to free content and that there is no willingness to pay for content has always been a myth fabricated by an industry unwilling to face its own failure. I'm really surprised that there are still people who believe in this myth because there are now plenty of examples showing that it is quite possible to make serious money by selling content (Spotify, Netflix, iTunes store, New York Times, among many others).
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    The difficulty here is that people refer to "content" as though it's a commodity, and it's not. There's a huge difference between the market value of content provided by the New York Times and the content in a tabloid (even if it is a popular publication like Bild). With blogs and citizen journalism and everything else there are now millions of sources of "content", and content by itself has become almost value-less. I think good content is getting more and more valuable by contrast, although its market is probably shrinking.
r0s 11y ago
Free with ads, or paid with less ads is not much of a value proposition. To the ad-hating, legitimate fans of the publication, there's probably minor difference. That's the group this plan is targeting.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
Should I reveal my identity to these publishers? If yes then no deal from me. Anonymous micro payments would be very welcomed though . I do not think that we should give media more power to manipulate people individually (block content or speech, show differently biased content for different individuals etc). Disclaimer: I do not use ad-blocking but I have noticed that ads have become more and more intrusive and aggressive and Internet is becoming more and more like TV where you could not read or watch something without constant interruption (the main purpose why people actually choose Internet over TV). This means that I am more and more willing to use some ad-blocking solution or I just do not visit places with intrusive advertising tactics. So possibly the real solution is less and less aggressive ads and especially no ads after payment (no there is no excuse for that beside publisher greed).

godzillabrennus 11y ago

Publishing written content is not a good business to be in these days. Just as a decade ago the music industry faced a cultural shift now the publishing industry is transitioning. The gist is that this kind of looked at as an entitlement not a service worth paying to have. Basically, the fourth estate is a zombie about to be put down unless something drastic happens.

tmalsburg2 11y ago
That users feel entitled to free content and that there is no willingness to pay for content has always been a myth fabricated by an industry unwilling to face its own failure. I'm really surprised that there are still people who believe in this myth because there are now plenty of examples showing that it is quite possible to make serious money by selling content (Spotify, Netflix, iTunes store, New York Times, among many others).
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  The difficulty here is that people refer to "content" as though it's a commodity, and it's not. There's a huge difference between the market value of content provided by the New York Times and the content in a tabloid (even if it is a popular publication like Bild). With blogs and citizen journalism and everything else there are now millions of sources of "content", and content by itself has become almost value-less. I think good content is getting more and more valuable by contrast, although its market is probably shrinking.

r0s 11y ago

Free with ads, or paid with less ads is not much of a value proposition. To the ad-hating, legitimate fans of the publication, there's probably minor difference. That's the group this plan is targeting.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

Should I reveal my identity to these publishers? If yes then no deal from me. Anonymous micro payments would be very welcomed though . I do not think that we should give media more power to manipulate people individually (block content or speech, show differently biased content for different individuals etc). Disclaimer: I do not use ad-blocking but I have noticed that ads have become more and more intrusive and aggressive and Internet is becoming more and more like TV where you could not read or watch something without constant interruption (the main purpose why people actually choose Internet over TV). This means that I am more and more willing to use some ad-blocking solution or I just do not visit places with intrusive advertising tactics. So possibly the real solution is less and less aggressive ads and especially no ads after payment (no there is no excuse for that beside publisher greed).