4 ms·

I think news could be funded with a spotify-style subscription, where people pay $10/mo for paywall-free access to a large number of papers, and those papers ge

by ericd 8y ago

I think news could be funded with a spotify-style subscription, where people pay $10/mo for paywall-free access to a large number of papers, and those papers get a fraction of that persons' subscription, based on how long they spent reading that paper's articles. Call it NewsPass. The challenge is convincing the big papers that charge more than that for their subscription that they'll make more in aggregate, as many more people become paying subscribers.

atupis 8y ago
Yeah that might work, but it is still uphill battle. Spotify succeed because piracy was eating record labels profits and they had to do jump.
- ericd 8y ago
  Well, I would say that news organizations are pretty incentivized to find a new revenue source, too. But yeah, the marquee papers might be harder to get, and those would be the main motivator for subscribers. But maybe you could start with more niche publications like The Economist, Consumer Reports, which are already heavily paywalled but could benefit from a larger paying audience, build up an initial audience, and then go for NYT/WSJ.
  - atupis 8y ago
    Or you could try get big but very local publications like Aftonbladet.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    Another way to bootstrap this immensely desirable "spotify for news" model could be a platform (trusted third party) for mutual co-subscriptions. Subscribe with publication A, also gain access (metered behind the scenes, redistributing some predetermined part of the subscription fee according to measured consumption) to otherwise equally paywalled publications B,C and D. But something like that will only happen when attractiveness for publications is maximised, which requires, amongst other things, that the platform avoids consumer facing lock-in or even just branding, because that would make publications (rightly) fear that they hand over whatever pre-existing digital subscriptions they already have to an exploitative intermediary. This in turn pretty much rules out the VC model for starting the platform, since eventually becoming exploitative is a required ingredient of the risk equation. But I see no reason why this could not work as a cooperative, because all the platform marketing would be directed at potential members. Consumer marketing, something in which a cooperative would tend to be inferior to a metrics-driven VC project (by a wide margin I suspect), would be left entirely to publications, who subsequently get to "own" the subscriptions they pulled in. Important design parameters would be the ratio between pooled and unpooled fees and the exact rules about weigh and how much content member publications would be allowed to keep exclusive to their direct subscribers. Outside of implementation, the biggest challenge would be to convince publications that few people would ever subscribe directly to multiple channels (how many people had now than one daily newspaper?) and that therefore, the content made available to subscribers of their peers would not cannibalize potential direct subscriptions very much.
    - ericd 8y ago
      This is a very good point, and I'm guessing something that has blocked this model from working in the past - it's totally natural that newspapers wouldn't want to lose control/ownership of their subscriber base. And I think you're right that that implies that it might be much better to set this up as a JV/cooperative between various papers, with a software arm that charges fees to the parent organization, but that doesn't own the core assets (those being owned by the papers). Would also need to devise some way to get out of the coop, or structure it so that the members feel confident that it won't paint them into a terrible corner. I'm not the right person to build this, it's mostly a BD problem (and I have a very long to-do list anyway), but I hope someone takes a stab at doing it right. Seems like various people have tried to do it as a more traditional startup, but I think the danger to the publications is probably too great with that structure, which would make it much harder to get buy in.
adrianN 8y ago
That would work if newspapers didn't think that everyone is willing to pay $10/mo to read just their paper, like it was before the Internet.
- ericd 8y ago
  Right, that's the challenge. But I don't think any papers except the NYT and maybe a couple others are justified in thinking that, and I think even they would probably end up net positive, since the vast majority of their readers are currently just ad-supported. I'm guessing the reality has sunk in for most papers.
- sytelus 8y ago
  Interestingly, before the arrival of Internet, people had no qualms for paying $1 per day for newspapers. That’s at least $30 per month. Weekends editions were priced more and many people would even have subscription to couple of newspapers. Their content for quarter of the price of a coffee cup looked pretty cheap and no one seems to complain about the price.
  - frosted-flakes 8y ago
    Newspapers are tangible things. Some pixels on a screen are not, and the entire model of the web is that "everything is free". It's hard to break away from that.
- vrc 8y ago
  I spent the last 3 years selling access-control/paywall-like software to large news agencies, and in the process, met with top executives in almost every major news organization/conglomerate in the US, Europe, and AUNZ. This is absolutely the number 1 reason the major news organizations don't want to bundle up, and in the case of the top 5 (NYT, WaPo, FT, Guardian), works. Interestingly the second reason is brand. Nobody wants brand dilution from being considered in a "pool" with other publications, because it will reduce their power to charge more for their product in ads and subscription. While small publications actually do want solutions like this, generally the large publications with readership are even more upset to be lumped in with the small publications than they are to be lumped in with their competitors. One solution which I saw but wasn't worth my company's time to explore was finding a bundle of niche publications willing to work together on a shared content-for-pay solution and had a loyal readership willing to pay, and growing outwards from that seed. But that's a very uphill battle.
wishrider 8y ago
This is exactly what I try to solve with https://wishpage.tv/ https://wishpage.tv/ people can make a content wish, people can attach monetary rewards to wishes and then someone can pick up the wish and make a video for example. So it goes two ways, citizens can wish for the news/content they want to see and content creators don't have to guess anymore what the people want to see. I made it a bit like a social network where every user has an individual wish page so good reporters can build up a good reputation. Feedback would be great, what do you think? Is there anything you would like to see on the platform?
isostatic 8y ago
https://agate.one https://agate.one They have a couple of titles. They really need to link up with the large local networks though.
- amelius 8y ago
  Another one: https://launch.blendle.com https://launch.blendle.com But in the end, big companies who own the smartphone experience, such as Apple and Google will probably own the biggest news/content platforms.
mcintyre1994 8y ago
I think this is where Apple News is trying to go?
- ericd 8y ago
  Maybe? I’ve never had the least interest in using their offering, but they certainly have the scale/resources/clout to make a decent push for it.
manigandham 8y ago
People don't value or pay for news that way and it hurts many who otherwise couldn't afford it. Publishers also don't work together and the long-tail doesn't make enough anyway. It's not a new idea and has been tried 100s of times. We tried it just a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820
- ericd 8y ago
  Thanks for trying to fix the problem and for sharing your experience. Are you convinced that it just couldn’t work?
  - manigandham 8y ago
    No, but this is user behavior learned over decades and generations. At least with physical media, like newspapers and books, the tangible transfer is relatively easy to value, but digital started free and adblocking only continues to reinforce it. Add in the infinite supply, intangible nature, and 0-cost copying and it's hard to close that Pandora's box. Changing behavior is possible but will require major cooperation and money to do so, at the scale of both Facebook and Google working together to change things. Maybe that'll happen someday but I just don't see it.

by ericd 8y ago

atupis 8y ago

Yeah that might work, but it is still uphill battle. Spotify succeed because piracy was eating record labels profits and they had to do jump.

ericd 8y ago
Well, I would say that news organizations are pretty incentivized to find a new revenue source, too. But yeah, the marquee papers might be harder to get, and those would be the main motivator for subscribers. But maybe you could start with more niche publications like The Economist, Consumer Reports, which are already heavily paywalled but could benefit from a larger paying audience, build up an initial audience, and then go for NYT/WSJ.
- atupis 8y ago
  Or you could try get big but very local publications like Aftonbladet.
- usrusr 8y ago
  Another way to bootstrap this immensely desirable "spotify for news" model could be a platform (trusted third party) for mutual co-subscriptions. Subscribe with publication A, also gain access (metered behind the scenes, redistributing some predetermined part of the subscription fee according to measured consumption) to otherwise equally paywalled publications B,C and D. But something like that will only happen when attractiveness for publications is maximised, which requires, amongst other things, that the platform avoids consumer facing lock-in or even just branding, because that would make publications (rightly) fear that they hand over whatever pre-existing digital subscriptions they already have to an exploitative intermediary. This in turn pretty much rules out the VC model for starting the platform, since eventually becoming exploitative is a required ingredient of the risk equation. But I see no reason why this could not work as a cooperative, because all the platform marketing would be directed at potential members. Consumer marketing, something in which a cooperative would tend to be inferior to a metrics-driven VC project (by a wide margin I suspect), would be left entirely to publications, who subsequently get to "own" the subscriptions they pulled in. Important design parameters would be the ratio between pooled and unpooled fees and the exact rules about weigh and how much content member publications would be allowed to keep exclusive to their direct subscribers. Outside of implementation, the biggest challenge would be to convince publications that few people would ever subscribe directly to multiple channels (how many people had now than one daily newspaper?) and that therefore, the content made available to subscribers of their peers would not cannibalize potential direct subscriptions very much.
  - ericd 8y ago
    This is a very good point, and I'm guessing something that has blocked this model from working in the past - it's totally natural that newspapers wouldn't want to lose control/ownership of their subscriber base. And I think you're right that that implies that it might be much better to set this up as a JV/cooperative between various papers, with a software arm that charges fees to the parent organization, but that doesn't own the core assets (those being owned by the papers). Would also need to devise some way to get out of the coop, or structure it so that the members feel confident that it won't paint them into a terrible corner. I'm not the right person to build this, it's mostly a BD problem (and I have a very long to-do list anyway), but I hope someone takes a stab at doing it right. Seems like various people have tried to do it as a more traditional startup, but I think the danger to the publications is probably too great with that structure, which would make it much harder to get buy in.

adrianN 8y ago

That would work if newspapers didn't think that everyone is willing to pay $10/mo to read just their paper, like it was before the Internet.

ericd 8y ago
Right, that's the challenge. But I don't think any papers except the NYT and maybe a couple others are justified in thinking that, and I think even they would probably end up net positive, since the vast majority of their readers are currently just ad-supported. I'm guessing the reality has sunk in for most papers.
sytelus 8y ago
Interestingly, before the arrival of Internet, people had no qualms for paying $1 per day for newspapers. That’s at least $30 per month. Weekends editions were priced more and many people would even have subscription to couple of newspapers. Their content for quarter of the price of a coffee cup looked pretty cheap and no one seems to complain about the price.
- frosted-flakes 8y ago
  Newspapers are tangible things. Some pixels on a screen are not, and the entire model of the web is that "everything is free". It's hard to break away from that.
vrc 8y ago
I spent the last 3 years selling access-control/paywall-like software to large news agencies, and in the process, met with top executives in almost every major news organization/conglomerate in the US, Europe, and AUNZ. This is absolutely the number 1 reason the major news organizations don't want to bundle up, and in the case of the top 5 (NYT, WaPo, FT, Guardian), works. Interestingly the second reason is brand. Nobody wants brand dilution from being considered in a "pool" with other publications, because it will reduce their power to charge more for their product in ads and subscription. While small publications actually do want solutions like this, generally the large publications with readership are even more upset to be lumped in with the small publications than they are to be lumped in with their competitors. One solution which I saw but wasn't worth my company's time to explore was finding a bundle of niche publications willing to work together on a shared content-for-pay solution and had a loyal readership willing to pay, and growing outwards from that seed. But that's a very uphill battle.

wishrider 8y ago

This is exactly what I try to solve with https://wishpage.tv/ https://wishpage.tv/ people can make a content wish, people can attach monetary rewards to wishes and then someone can pick up the wish and make a video for example. So it goes two ways, citizens can wish for the news/content they want to see and content creators don't have to guess anymore what the people want to see. I made it a bit like a social network where every user has an individual wish page so good reporters can build up a good reputation. Feedback would be great, what do you think? Is there anything you would like to see on the platform?

isostatic 8y ago

https://agate.one https://agate.one They have a couple of titles. They really need to link up with the large local networks though.

amelius 8y ago
Another one: https://launch.blendle.com https://launch.blendle.com But in the end, big companies who own the smartphone experience, such as Apple and Google will probably own the biggest news/content platforms.

mcintyre1994 8y ago

I think this is where Apple News is trying to go?

ericd 8y ago
Maybe? I’ve never had the least interest in using their offering, but they certainly have the scale/resources/clout to make a decent push for it.

manigandham 8y ago

People don't value or pay for news that way and it hurts many who otherwise couldn't afford it. Publishers also don't work together and the long-tail doesn't make enough anyway. It's not a new idea and has been tried 100s of times. We tried it just a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038820

ericd 8y ago
Thanks for trying to fix the problem and for sharing your experience. Are you convinced that it just couldn’t work?
- manigandham 8y ago
  No, but this is user behavior learned over decades and generations. At least with physical media, like newspapers and books, the tangible transfer is relatively easy to value, but digital started free and adblocking only continues to reinforce it. Add in the infinite supply, intangible nature, and 0-cost copying and it's hard to close that Pandora's box. Changing behavior is possible but will require major cooperation and money to do so, at the scale of both Facebook and Google working together to change things. Maybe that'll happen someday but I just don't see it.