5 ms·
The Economist provides a pretty good mix. I subscribe to it, the NYT, and the New Yorker. I probably won't renew my NYT subscription as I find myself reading it
by js2 10y ago
The Economist provides a pretty good mix. I subscribe to it, the NYT, and the New Yorker. I probably won't renew my NYT subscription as I find myself reading it much less often since I picked up The Economist subscription.
What I'd really like though is to support one or two major publications and then have a slush fund where I could pay per article to other sources.
I don't know... does HN have enough readership where it could collect funds and redistribute? It's my primary source of reading random material.
- fovc 10y agoCheck out Blendle.com. I haven't used them much recently, but I enjoyed paying for quality journalism per article. There is (or was) an HN sign up promo somewhere
- anigbrowl 10y agoI don't think this for-article model is a good one. It turns journalism into piecework, and while there's the opportunity to strike gold and get lucky with a particularly timely or well-received piece, it also tends to prioritize quantity over quality because the former yields more predictable rewards.
- js2 10y agoHmmm. Publications have always had a mix of both subscriptions and newsstand sales. Pay per article is just a more granular version of that. Unfortunately I can't afford all the different publications that might have an interesting article from time to time, but it seems like it would be their loss if they completely paywalled everything off. Maybe something more like gym memberships would work where you could purchase say a 10-article "punchcard" or a subscription.
- mattkrause 10y agoIt might be too granular. One of the things I like about print magazines (and newspapers) is the serendipity--you read something that wouldn't normally grab your attention because it's on the next page and...you've already paid for it, after all. Paying per article seems like it would push people only to read things that they're sure they'll enjoy (based on the author, title, etc).
- js2 10y agoTrue, but I already have more than I can read. You could always let readers make the decision to pay after reading, with maybe a reasonable limit.
- mattkrause 10y agoI do too, but...here I am. I wonder if an opt-out payment scheme would work: you authorize the site to bill you up to (say) $5/month. When you finish reading an article, the site deducts $0.25 from your account unless you take some simple action. If your account is empty, you read for free until the next month, and maybe some "proud support/well read" flair or something. It does put a limit on the site's monthly revenue, but perhaps ensuring that readers feel like they're getting what they paid for helps make up for that.
- Spooky23 10y agoI tend to rotate through. The Economist is excellent, but gets a little boring. If you read it for a year, you basically know exactly what they will say about everything for the next 2-4 years. :) Foreign Affairs is worth checking out if you like the economist. There's a few other journal-like magazines in big bookstores worth checking out. NYT is like NPR -- high quality reporting, but they beat you over the head with a stick to get across whatever broader point they have. It gets a little ponderous. The secret of the NYT is that you escape that crap by turning the page... the features are a treasure. I've been hooked to Science Times since second grade. They have stuff on art, books, etc... that's why you subscribe. The news is a commodity.