5 ms·

I think that most media outlets make a wrong assumption about online content. They think that everybody wants content that's free above all else, so they swamp

I think that most media outlets make a wrong assumption about online content. They think that everybody wants content that's free above all else, so they swamp their content with ads. But I think it's more that people want diversity. I'll happily support news outlets financially, but at $300/yr for Globe&Mail and $260/yr for NYTimes, etc, the cost is just ridiculous. I WANT to support good journalism, but I want to pay a set price and have it be divided by my actual consumption. If I subscribe to two newspapers my consumption doesn't double, so I don't want to pay double. The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article.

calcifer 9y ago
For me it's the other way around. I pay for the Guardian because I think they do important, much needed journalism in many areas - including ones I'm not personally interested in. I like the idea that my money helps pay for articles that wouldn't get funded if it depended on a popularity contest.
- peeters 9y ago
  For some publications I might agree. But many of them have comedy, sports and pop culture sections that I think blur their focus. I don't feel the need to spend a single dollar on supporting that content, I'll find better elsewhere if I want it.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    You realise that one of the reasons for taking the observer was Clive James TV reviews like wise the Late Simon Hoggarts political diary in the Guardian.
ethagnawl 9y ago
> The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article. I think this is spot-on. My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge (a la Brave and its Basic Attention Token).
- peeters 9y ago
  > My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge I think so too, I think it's just a question of outlets realizing that the lost profits from cannibalizing their subscription sales does not compare to the income from allowing consumers to buy pieces of your publication.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    It was tried in the past. There were attempts to get newspapers to unite behind single group subscription schemes. The newspapers themselves rejected it. Problem is if a third party collects your income for you, you're not really independent anymore. Also, they don't want to receive pennies because someone read a single article they wrote, they want long term subscribers. Finally it requires them to all adopt paywalls which they didn't want to do back then (maybe these days it'd be different). I wish I could remember the name of the scheme I'm thinking of.
    - justincormack 9y ago
      Project Alesia was the internal name.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Take a look at Blendle. It does exactly this - pay-per-article - and aggregates quite a few popular publications already.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Unlikely. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4r683b/repudiation_as_the_micropayments_killer_feature/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4r683b/repudia... https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft

calcifer 9y ago

For me it's the other way around. I pay for the Guardian because I think they do important, much needed journalism in many areas - including ones I'm not personally interested in. I like the idea that my money helps pay for articles that wouldn't get funded if it depended on a popularity contest.

peeters 9y ago
For some publications I might agree. But many of them have comedy, sports and pop culture sections that I think blur their focus. I don't feel the need to spend a single dollar on supporting that content, I'll find better elsewhere if I want it.
- walshemj 9y ago
  You realise that one of the reasons for taking the observer was Clive James TV reviews like wise the Late Simon Hoggarts political diary in the Guardian.

ethagnawl 9y ago

> The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article. I think this is spot-on. My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge (a la Brave and its Basic Attention Token).

peeters 9y ago
> My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge I think so too, I think it's just a question of outlets realizing that the lost profits from cannibalizing their subscription sales does not compare to the income from allowing consumers to buy pieces of your publication.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  It was tried in the past. There were attempts to get newspapers to unite behind single group subscription schemes. The newspapers themselves rejected it. Problem is if a third party collects your income for you, you're not really independent anymore. Also, they don't want to receive pennies because someone read a single article they wrote, they want long term subscribers. Finally it requires them to all adopt paywalls which they didn't want to do back then (maybe these days it'd be different). I wish I could remember the name of the scheme I'm thinking of.
  - justincormack 9y ago
    Project Alesia was the internal name.
int_19h 9y ago
Take a look at Blendle. It does exactly this - pay-per-article - and aggregates quite a few popular publications already.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Unlikely. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4r683b/repudiation_as_the_micropayments_killer_feature/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4r683b/repudia... https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft