3 ms·
Interesting isn't it. Upthread there's someone saying to just use the newspaper model as it worked for decades, and here are two people saying they won't pay a
by vacri 10y ago
Interesting isn't it. Upthread there's someone saying to just use the newspaper model as it worked for decades, and here are two people saying they won't pay a fraction of the newspaper model (~27c/day).
Instead you want an immense pool of content generation for that 27c per day. Good journalism isn't cheap - that's why paper newspapers cost what they do and are full of adverts - but you want to pay rock-bottom prices to individual sources whilst still pretending that you're paying a 'reasonable amount'.
- dhimes 10y agoAlmost. I should point out that I do subscribe to the Boston Globe since that's where I live. The WaPo would be in addition- for that I would only want to pay a delta. This is a new revenue channel for them, not taking away the old one.
- sgc 10y agoThe entire newspaper is not of value to me, and I read a newspaper worth of articles total, so I think it is fair to pay a newspaper's worth of subscription prices and have that revenue spread around to the business whose articles I read. Any subscription model can have a quantified limit to my access. Like I said, this isn't hard to think about or do. There are movies that cost hundreds of millions to make which make up just one more item in the Netflix catalogue, and Hollywood is far from hurting. It may cost enormous amounts to produce good news, but this is true of the business model I am pointing out as well.