4 ms·

If publishers would get together and come up with a single micropayment system, I'd gladly pay them 10 cents or so for each article -- the same revenue that the

If publishers would get together and come up with a single micropayment system, I'd gladly pay them 10 cents or so for each article -- the same revenue that they'd get from the ads I'm blocking. But I'm not going to give out my credit card number to dozens of sites where I can "pay just a few dollars per month" to access their content. I don't want an annual subscription that renews automatically, and I'm probably not going to look at another article on that site for weeks, months or maybe never, so I don't want to pay dollars for an article that they are willing to show me for a few pennies worth of ad revenue -- just let me give them the pennies directly.

vthallam 10y ago
Yes! That should be like a netflix for content websites or where you could buy credits which works on all major publications and can be spend as you like.
- mmcclure 10y ago
  You might be interested in Blendle: http://blendle.com http://blendle.com
  - vthallam 10y ago
    This looks great. signed up for beta. Thanks:)
- Johnny555 10y ago
  I think if it were a Netflix for content websites, I'd pay one low monthly fee to have unlimited views of second rate websites. If I want to read big-name articles, for a bit more money, they'll ship me paper copies of the articles I want to view, but I'd have to return them when I'm done.
yegle 10y ago
You are looking for https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
- Johnny555 10y ago
  Sounds close, but not quite: Contributor works on millions of sites and on all of your browsers and devices. Some sites will show fewer ads than others, and often times, a thank you will appear instead of an ad. If I'm paying, I don't want any ads
  - RandallBrown 10y ago
    You don't have to if you pay enough. Basically, it works by having you bid for that ad space. If someone else outbids you, their ad shows.
    - mokus 10y ago
      I'd much rather be denied access to the content if I'm outbid. I'm bidding to view the media, not auctioning my eyeballs. My eyeballs are not for sale, at any price.
  - vitd 10y ago
    Definitely! Nor do I want Google tracking what I'm looking at. Nor do I like the extortion model of, "Well pay us and we won't annoy you."
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    What about signing up for that and continue blocking the ads? I personally would rather not pay anything and get an ad, sans tracking, which worked just fine for the content providers of yore. Does native advertising work? It just did.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Why pay the advertisers? Why not pay publishers directly? Why not have a single, income-prorated content fee which is then allocated as a quality-and-utilisation pro-rated compensation to information creators? BBC license fee, but universal and income based, on steroids. $100/year per person would cover all Internet advertising. $500/year per person would cover all advertising period. (And that's for major industrialised nations only -- US, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, roughly).
- Infinitesimus 10y ago
  > If publishers would get together and come up with a single micropayment system ... I believe this wasn't in reference to advertisers and seems rather similar to your proposal in theory. I'm unsure about the prices that will actually make sense for them to drop advertising completely though...
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    My fault -- in my original post I mistakenly typed advertisers instead of publishers. I thought I fixed it quickly, but not quickly enough...
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Ah, and I suppose I got in too fast.
trolly 10y ago
Screw that. I'm not paying for an article before I even know whether it's hacky garbage or actual journalism. As if the temptation for these sites to pump out clickbait isn't bad enough as it is.... Unless you mean a completely passive option to give them a "tip" so to speak. In which case I'm not saying it's a bad idea but how is that any different than donating once a year to NPR and PBS during their "Oh-God-Kill-Me-Now-athons." Or in the case of for-profit sites, paying for however many months of subscription fees you feel is appropriate for the value you received.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  I guess it could be some honor system "pay when you leave". Or maybe let you review the article "Was this worth 8 cents to you?" and display the votes before you pay so you can decide if it's worth the money. Or maybe you can flag an article as clickbait and get your money back.
  - w-ll 10y ago
    Could it be a function of time on page, maybe even with scroll distance. You generally know if the article will be garbage in the first paragraph or two and always before the fold (doubly so before the fold if there wasnt ads taking up the top 75% of the page)
- mercer 10y ago
  Blendle's 'no questions asked' money-back guarantee works pretty well. You pay the moment you open the article, and if you don't like it you click on the link in the top left to get your money back.

vthallam 10y ago

Yes! That should be like a netflix for content websites or where you could buy credits which works on all major publications and can be spend as you like.

mmcclure 10y ago
You might be interested in Blendle: http://blendle.com http://blendle.com
- vthallam 10y ago
  This looks great. signed up for beta. Thanks:)
Johnny555 10y ago
I think if it were a Netflix for content websites, I'd pay one low monthly fee to have unlimited views of second rate websites. If I want to read big-name articles, for a bit more money, they'll ship me paper copies of the articles I want to view, but I'd have to return them when I'm done.

yegle 10y ago

You are looking for https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

Johnny555 10y ago
Sounds close, but not quite: Contributor works on millions of sites and on all of your browsers and devices. Some sites will show fewer ads than others, and often times, a thank you will appear instead of an ad. If I'm paying, I don't want any ads
- RandallBrown 10y ago
  You don't have to if you pay enough. Basically, it works by having you bid for that ad space. If someone else outbids you, their ad shows.
  - mokus 10y ago
    I'd much rather be denied access to the content if I'm outbid. I'm bidding to view the media, not auctioning my eyeballs. My eyeballs are not for sale, at any price.
- vitd 10y ago
  Definitely! Nor do I want Google tracking what I'm looking at. Nor do I like the extortion model of, "Well pay us and we won't annoy you."
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  What about signing up for that and continue blocking the ads? I personally would rather not pay anything and get an ad, sans tracking, which worked just fine for the content providers of yore. Does native advertising work? It just did.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Why pay the advertisers? Why not pay publishers directly? Why not have a single, income-prorated content fee which is then allocated as a quality-and-utilisation pro-rated compensation to information creators? BBC license fee, but universal and income based, on steroids. $100/year per person would cover all Internet advertising. $500/year per person would cover all advertising period. (And that's for major industrialised nations only -- US, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, roughly).

Infinitesimus 10y ago
> If publishers would get together and come up with a single micropayment system ... I believe this wasn't in reference to advertisers and seems rather similar to your proposal in theory. I'm unsure about the prices that will actually make sense for them to drop advertising completely though...
- Johnny555 10y ago
  My fault -- in my original post I mistakenly typed advertisers instead of publishers. I thought I fixed it quickly, but not quickly enough...
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Ah, and I suppose I got in too fast.

trolly 10y ago

Screw that. I'm not paying for an article before I even know whether it's hacky garbage or actual journalism. As if the temptation for these sites to pump out clickbait isn't bad enough as it is.... Unless you mean a completely passive option to give them a "tip" so to speak. In which case I'm not saying it's a bad idea but how is that any different than donating once a year to NPR and PBS during their "Oh-God-Kill-Me-Now-athons." Or in the case of for-profit sites, paying for however many months of subscription fees you feel is appropriate for the value you received.

Johnny555 10y ago
I guess it could be some honor system "pay when you leave". Or maybe let you review the article "Was this worth 8 cents to you?" and display the votes before you pay so you can decide if it's worth the money. Or maybe you can flag an article as clickbait and get your money back.
- w-ll 10y ago
  Could it be a function of time on page, maybe even with scroll distance. You generally know if the article will be garbage in the first paragraph or two and always before the fold (doubly so before the fold if there wasnt ads taking up the top 75% of the page)
mercer 10y ago
Blendle's 'no questions asked' money-back guarantee works pretty well. You pay the moment you open the article, and if you don't like it you click on the link in the top left to get your money back.