4 ms·
No, for me this is absolutely no good. First, pay by the article means I can easily go through the annual amount I'm willing to spend on "news" in just a few a
by commentzorro 11y ago
No, for me this is absolutely no good.
First, pay by the article means I can easily go through the annual amount I'm willing to spend on "news" in just a few active months. Then I have nothing left for the rest of the year. I don't want to go through the mental effort based on each article and how it _might_ compare to others in the future in order to decide what to read, regardless of having to make that decision before or after I read the article. In other words, it may be a fine article on in it's own right and fully worth 25 cents. But not compared to all the articles I might read in a year. For example, if I have $150 per year for "subscriptions" that means I get 600 (25 cent) articles per year or 20 per month. Is this article worth it?
Second, as mentioned in numerous blogs, paying by the article creates a race to push more articles with just the minimum quality to get the pay click.
- mercer 11y agoI agree, and that's why the crucial part is the ability to ask for your money back. Generally I've been happy with the articles I paid for based on its popularity and what publication it was from. But if I recall correctly I asked for my money back once or twice. The reason I like Blendle is precisely that I've found few magazines or newspapers that are worth their subscription money. It's cheaper for me to pay for that occasional article that is written by a friend or recommended to me.