4 ms·
I think the idea is instead of having 1 user pay you $30 a month, you have 10 users (or more) paying you $3 a month, you end up with a net win (even at equivale
by godot 8y ago
I think the idea is instead of having 1 user pay you $30 a month, you have 10 users (or more) paying you $3 a month, you end up with a net win (even at equivalent of $30 a month of revenue because now you've had more eyeballs).
The problem is most publishers still don't necessarily believe this model or think it'll work, or think it's too risky. Blendle was able to do it because they started their own platform and essentially required little work from the publishers themselves to integrate (Blendle devs did most of the work to import the content, publishers just had to agree), and the Blendle solution doesn't "rock the boat" for these publishers, i.e. doesn't change existing users on their web site's behaviors.
- lajhsdfkl 8y ago> I think the idea is instead of having 1 user pay you $30 a month, you have 10 users (or more) paying you $3 a month, you end up with a net win Intuitively, I believe it's much easier to find one person to pay you $30 a month for quality journalism than to find 10 people to pay $3 a month. Neither of us have data to back our assertions but my argument is that the people that care about and read quality journalism are well off people and the marginal cost of paying $10 or $30 a month is not significant for them. >Blendle was able to do it because they started their own platform and essentially required little work from the publishers themselves to integrate I've never heard of blendle until reading the comments in this topic but just as a comparison, the WSJ has 1,270,000 digital subscribers paying $45 a month. Blendle has 550,000 users.