I suspect the reason we don't see this is because subscribers probably consume less than they pay for. To say it another way, many subscribers currently paying

I suspect the reason we don't see this is because subscribers probably consume less than they pay for. To say it another way, many subscribers currently paying $10/mo for NYT do not consume 100 articles in the month, on average. If those subscribers switch to pay-as-you go it would be a net loss, even though the audience may have technically expanded. In economic terms, i believe this related to The Law of Diminishing Utility. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility... e.g. - a consumer will pay $10 to consume the first 30 articles in a month, but the 31-100 articles have a diminishing utility (so much time in the day to read). If they paid per article from the start, overall they would pay less. If we were to say 1 article per day from NYT is interesting, a person would consume 30 articles in a month, paying $3. The NYT would need to triple their pay-as-you-go readership to break even. In reality, it's rare that a pricing change as such would accomplish a 3x gain in readship. So, the status quo continues. Just for the record, I'm not judging your idea, just adding to the conversation of why it hasn't likely happened. There is probably room for a competitor to offer that sort of pricing, but it likely wouldn't work favorable for every organization, from a shareholders perspective.