3 ms·

I agree with paying journalists for their work. but, They never provide a means to pay for the content of just the one article. I don't want a new magazine su

I agree with paying journalists for their work. but, They never provide a means to pay for the content of just the one article. I don't want a new magazine subscription everytime I surf to a new link. So, forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for a news organization that refuses to get up to date with how the internet works. The internet is on demand. If you want people to pay, it should also be on demand. Not, ohhh now you have to pay 200$ for a year long subscription just to read 1 little article which I was only going to look at for 60 seconds anyway.

munificent 7y ago
> So, forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for a news organization that refuses to get up to date with how the internet works. News organizations probably understand "how the internet works" better than you do. (Not too surprising since their livelihood depends on it.) Lots of research and many many real-world attempts clearly demonstrate that small-scale individual transations do work effectively. The cognitive cost of a user having to choose to buy each small product outweighs the value and adds so much friction that most users simply don't buy it. Subscriptions have their own challenges, but overall, they have shown to be a much more effective model than microtransactions. No business is obligated to build an entire transaction system that works the way each particular customer wants it. If you don't want to buy the product the way they choose to sell it to you (in this case, with a subscription) then you can simply choose not to buy it. You have no moral right to claim "I'm going to take this for free because they didn't sell it to me the way I like."
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  i didn't say anything about taking the content. they just shouldn't be surprised when people don't pay for those subscriptions on the internet the way they do for Print.
gsanghera 7y ago
You may want to check out Blendle - it does exactly what you ask. You pay for the article you read.

munificent 7y ago

> So, forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for a news organization that refuses to get up to date with how the internet works. News organizations probably understand "how the internet works" better than you do. (Not too surprising since their livelihood depends on it.) Lots of research and many many real-world attempts clearly demonstrate that small-scale individual transations do work effectively. The cognitive cost of a user having to choose to buy each small product outweighs the value and adds so much friction that most users simply don't buy it. Subscriptions have their own challenges, but overall, they have shown to be a much more effective model than microtransactions. No business is obligated to build an entire transaction system that works the way each particular customer wants it. If you don't want to buy the product the way they choose to sell it to you (in this case, with a subscription) then you can simply choose not to buy it. You have no moral right to claim "I'm going to take this for free because they didn't sell it to me the way I like."

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
i didn't say anything about taking the content. they just shouldn't be surprised when people don't pay for those subscriptions on the internet the way they do for Print.

gsanghera 7y ago

You may want to check out Blendle - it does exactly what you ask. You pay for the article you read.