4 ms·

If anyone in the comments can figure out a sustainable business model for news that doesn't involve bloat-inducing ads or unrealistic expectations of consumers

If anyone in the comments can figure out a sustainable business model for news that doesn't involve bloat-inducing ads or unrealistic expectations of consumers paying subscription fees, I'll Venmo them (money to buy) a beer.

lemagedurage 7y ago
Start a counter movement and make dry, accurate news, with a humoristic undertone (ha-ha this is barely interesting, but it's accurate!)?
- haggy 7y ago
  Posting content with little to no validation of fact isn't a valid form of journalism and isn't any kind of "counter movement" IMO. That's called a gossip column or tabloid.
lawn 7y ago
I don't understand why paying for single articles isn't more popular. It's the same for streaming services: I should be able to pay for that one TV-series I want to watch, or that one movie that's only available on that one streaming service I don't have.
- mynameisvlad 7y ago
  I mean, you can do the latter already. You can buy a season or a single episode of a show on iTunes, Amazon, etc. You can also rent or buy single movies across many different platforms. It’s just absurdly expensive compared to a streaming service. This is partly due to legacy pricing (I don’t think the price of a movie or TV show has gone down in many years, and all the providers charge the same) but also because I’m sure a lot of revenue for subscription services comes from people who buy the subscription but don’t use the service.
- the8472 7y ago
  Transactions (micro or not) have wall-time, monetary and psychological overhead. If you split this among dozens of items and providers it only gets worse. Paying per article may make sense for in-depth analysis, investigative journalism and other large pieces. But for the daily news it's probably just too small a unit.
- fiddlerwoaroof 7y ago
  There is Blendle, which I find pretty nice: it’s like 25¢ per article and you put money into an account ahead of time.
itsyogesh 7y ago
I've been thinking for a while about this now, and I feel micropayments would probably have a huge impact around this. Maybe have a library app with most of the publications where you load some money in and for every article that you read halfway through (kinda like the Spotify model for incentivising artists) it automatically pays them from your end. The main fallacy I see here is that you need to have money all the time in your account before you could read or you won't be able to read any articles. One way to mitigate this is that for every article you read you have the option of saving it later so you have something to read. The second one could be to show them ads. P.S. I've been working around building an app for this for a while now.
- grenoire 7y ago
  This hits the nail on its head: Convenience in payments is such a great factor in making such models successful. People should be able to make these small and (individually) insignificant payments without having to jump through three factors of hoops.
- dangrossman 7y ago
  This doesn't actually work. Micropayments from readers will never substitute for ad revenue, and convenience isn't the reason. Even if you removed all friction from the system, and had the government mandate every citizen of the United States 18 years or older automatically has $12 per month taken from their pay (a typical content service subscription cost) and put in a microtransactions fund to distribute to the sites you read, you'd only be covering about 20% of what US advertisers currently spend. An 80% revenue cut would put most newspapers out of business: it certainly wouldn't let them remove their ads while operating as they currently do. The reason micropayments will never add up is that advertisers have more to spend than consumers. They have more to spend because a portion of every purchase consumers make is funding that advertising. When you pay your car loan, buy groceries, fill your prescriptions, you're giving advertisers money to spend. And you're giving them a lot more per month than you have left over to fund your own microtransaction pool for the month.
  - itsyogesh 7y ago
aranjedeath 7y ago
I've been really happy with Scroll (.com). $5/mo to remove ads on some news sites. The money goes directly to the publisher, minus the company's bit. It's really good now, and I wouldn't complain if the price went up as the site list expanded.

lemagedurage 7y ago

Start a counter movement and make dry, accurate news, with a humoristic undertone (ha-ha this is barely interesting, but it's accurate!)?

haggy 7y ago
Posting content with little to no validation of fact isn't a valid form of journalism and isn't any kind of "counter movement" IMO. That's called a gossip column or tabloid.

lawn 7y ago

I don't understand why paying for single articles isn't more popular. It's the same for streaming services: I should be able to pay for that one TV-series I want to watch, or that one movie that's only available on that one streaming service I don't have.

mynameisvlad 7y ago
I mean, you can do the latter already. You can buy a season or a single episode of a show on iTunes, Amazon, etc. You can also rent or buy single movies across many different platforms. It’s just absurdly expensive compared to a streaming service. This is partly due to legacy pricing (I don’t think the price of a movie or TV show has gone down in many years, and all the providers charge the same) but also because I’m sure a lot of revenue for subscription services comes from people who buy the subscription but don’t use the service.
the8472 7y ago
Transactions (micro or not) have wall-time, monetary and psychological overhead. If you split this among dozens of items and providers it only gets worse. Paying per article may make sense for in-depth analysis, investigative journalism and other large pieces. But for the daily news it's probably just too small a unit.
fiddlerwoaroof 7y ago
There is Blendle, which I find pretty nice: it’s like 25¢ per article and you put money into an account ahead of time.

itsyogesh 7y ago

I've been thinking for a while about this now, and I feel micropayments would probably have a huge impact around this. Maybe have a library app with most of the publications where you load some money in and for every article that you read halfway through (kinda like the Spotify model for incentivising artists) it automatically pays them from your end. The main fallacy I see here is that you need to have money all the time in your account before you could read or you won't be able to read any articles. One way to mitigate this is that for every article you read you have the option of saving it later so you have something to read. The second one could be to show them ads. P.S. I've been working around building an app for this for a while now.

grenoire 7y ago
This hits the nail on its head: Convenience in payments is such a great factor in making such models successful. People should be able to make these small and (individually) insignificant payments without having to jump through three factors of hoops.
dangrossman 7y ago
This doesn't actually work. Micropayments from readers will never substitute for ad revenue, and convenience isn't the reason. Even if you removed all friction from the system, and had the government mandate every citizen of the United States 18 years or older automatically has $12 per month taken from their pay (a typical content service subscription cost) and put in a microtransactions fund to distribute to the sites you read, you'd only be covering about 20% of what US advertisers currently spend. An 80% revenue cut would put most newspapers out of business: it certainly wouldn't let them remove their ads while operating as they currently do. The reason micropayments will never add up is that advertisers have more to spend than consumers. They have more to spend because a portion of every purchase consumers make is funding that advertising. When you pay your car loan, buy groceries, fill your prescriptions, you're giving advertisers money to spend. And you're giving them a lot more per month than you have left over to fund your own microtransaction pool for the month.
- itsyogesh 7y ago

aranjedeath 7y ago

I've been really happy with Scroll (.com). $5/mo to remove ads on some news sites. The money goes directly to the publisher, minus the company's bit. It's really good now, and I wouldn't complain if the price went up as the site list expanded.