The problem is that you pay for a lot of content you're not going to read. I'm going to assume that no one reads everything from 15 sources. And 15 subscription

The problem is that you pay for a lot of content you're not going to read. I'm going to assume that no one reads everything from 15 sources. And 15 subscriptions are expensive. NYT for example is relatively cheap (like 10$/month) but the large newspapers in Germany and Switzerland are more like 40€/month each. I'd never pay that because there's at least 60% of content I don't read because it doesn't interest me or I have no time. To get a full picture I'd need multiple subscriptions which is prohibitively expensive. So instead I pay none (at least no daily) and just read what's free on the net. A flat rate subscription model could also prevent a bit of the filter bubble because it would allow me to read at no further expense different views from paper that I'd never pay to subscribe to separately. I disagree with your assumption as well. Maybe they have room their numbers but in my opinion their are missing out on a new business model. Feels very much like the early music business. All these new digital portfolios (including okay ones like the guardian) are only the very first and limited step the industry should take. They are really very limited in functionally and vision. I know there are others like me but I'm not sure how many. I'm hoping for a change. Good information and well paid journalists are getting more and more important I think.