3 ms·

I agree: I think the dirty little secret about advertising supported journalism (or really most websites producing new "content" with some regular frequency) i

I agree: I think the dirty little secret about advertising supported journalism (or really most websites producing new "content" with some regular frequency) is that much of the "content" is absolutely vapid fast food. I don't know what an internet without all of the worthless ad-supported "content" looks like, but however it looks, suspect it is the steady-state equilibrium that will exist in the future. Because the ad-supported business model -- bad UX by definition -- is so obviously a house of cards.

zozbot234 7y ago
Crowdfunding could do it, but it comes with its own fairly large transaction costs. Most crowdfunding platforms are also far from politically neutral, which is a problem if this is supposed to be the future of journalism.
- jordanpg 7y ago
  I can imagine a vision of the future where the internet has become more akin to a public utility, like electricity, and the novelty of websites has worn off. In this world, I can imagine a patronage model working: wealthy individuals support particular journalists, perhaps privately, and the infrastructure of the internet is used to get the word out in a way that is analogous to the chat or messaging of the present.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Yes, the transaction costs of sending money over the internet (even BTC has a pretty high energy-cost per transaction, that's ultimately paid by BTC hodlers) mean that the relatively-wealthy are far more likely to provide this kind of support. It's a lot cheaper for one person to fund a journalist, blogger etc. with $10,000 than for 10,000 people to fund her with $1 each.
hx87 7y ago
I wonder what the breakeven cost would be of a monthly subscription to ad-free journalism on the quality level of the New York Times (or your preferred equivalent). Something like $200-300 maybe? If it were actually ad-free and zero-clickbait, 100% high quality journalism, I'd be willing to pay about that much.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  I wouldn't be willing to pay that much, maybe 10% of that. But the actual cost to the newspaper would be far higher. What you pay could be as low as that cost / # subscribers, or higher if there's no competition.

zozbot234 7y ago

Crowdfunding could do it, but it comes with its own fairly large transaction costs. Most crowdfunding platforms are also far from politically neutral, which is a problem if this is supposed to be the future of journalism.

jordanpg 7y ago
I can imagine a vision of the future where the internet has become more akin to a public utility, like electricity, and the novelty of websites has worn off. In this world, I can imagine a patronage model working: wealthy individuals support particular journalists, perhaps privately, and the infrastructure of the internet is used to get the word out in a way that is analogous to the chat or messaging of the present.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Yes, the transaction costs of sending money over the internet (even BTC has a pretty high energy-cost per transaction, that's ultimately paid by BTC hodlers) mean that the relatively-wealthy are far more likely to provide this kind of support. It's a lot cheaper for one person to fund a journalist, blogger etc. with $10,000 than for 10,000 people to fund her with $1 each.

hx87 7y ago

I wonder what the breakeven cost would be of a monthly subscription to ad-free journalism on the quality level of the New York Times (or your preferred equivalent). Something like $200-300 maybe? If it were actually ad-free and zero-clickbait, 100% high quality journalism, I'd be willing to pay about that much.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
I wouldn't be willing to pay that much, maybe 10% of that. But the actual cost to the newspaper would be far higher. What you pay could be as low as that cost / # subscribers, or higher if there's no competition.