2 ms·
> Consumers are in a way that equilibrium where they don't want to pay for web content (esp text web content), and the path to getting them to the equilibrium o
by majewsky 7y ago
> Consumers are in a way that equilibrium where they don't want to pay for web content (esp text web content), and the path to getting them to the equilibrium of paying without thinking about it (like with Netflix or power) is unclear.
You disprove yourself by mentioning Netflix. The path is absolutely clear: Customers are willing to pay for added value that's proportionate to the cost.
The problem for publishers is they do not add any value that would justify customers paying enough for their content. Few people will pay for a newspaper subscription when there are 10 other newspapers offering 90% of the same content for free.
There are models that work, e.g. Patreon, but those usually don't scale up to, say, the Washington Post or CNN.
- wutbrodo 7y ago> You disprove yourself by mentioning Netflix This isn't how equilbria work. Netflix was a superior product to piracy in many ways: no perceived legal risk, reliable access, high quality guaranteed, way better ease of use. These barriers were high enough that plenty of people didn't pirate at all and stuck with nonsense like DVDs for way too long, so the incentive path pointed smoothly towards switching to Netflix, a Pareto improvement for non-pirates and a fairly easy trade-off for pirates. There's no such path for web content: adblockers are unquestionably legal, easy to set up, provide a better experience, and even non-users of adblockers have a trillion non-paywalled sources in an ecosystem where it's tough for strong brand loyalty to survive en masse. What advantages do you imagine a paywall option offering to people when their alternative is better in almost every respect? > There are models that work, e.g. Patreon, but those usually don't scale up to, say, the Washington Post or CNN.