3 ms·
The problem with journalism is everyone wants it but hardly anyone will pay for it unless it directly helps them in some way. So Bloomberg and the FT (trade pr
by genericpseudo 11y ago
The problem with journalism is everyone wants it but hardly anyone will pay for it unless it directly helps them in some way.
So Bloomberg and the FT (trade press) have a business model, the BBC has the license fee so doesn't need a business model, and everyone else will go bankrupt slowly – note that none of the other para-news apps which were fashionable a while ago (Circa, Feedly, Google Reader, etc...) have come anywhere close to being financially valuable.
- mike_hearn 11y agoThe Economist is profitable.
- aedron 11y agoThe 'business model' of big media like the New York Times is to be grandfathered by a bunch of people who are happy to spend a lot of money for the chance to form and color people's opinions. That is infinitely more valuable than the chump change they can make from advertising and circulation, which, as is apparent, barely covers operational expenses. You can see this story play out for all big 'serious' newspapers all over the world.
- michaelwww 11y agoI think a lot of people like me would pay for it if there was some sensible micro-payment system. I'm hardly ever inclined to sign up and pay ~$10 a month to read an article on a site. If I saw the article in a newspaper at a stand or machine, I used to spend 50 cents buy it and get an entire newspaper for my money. A single article would seem to be worth at most 25 cents, most of the time a dime, and I would gladly pay that amount to read a good article. I don't understand what the problem is and why this isn't implemented yet.