3 ms·

Why Should I Pay to Read This?

13 points by leephillips 5y ago

JohnWhigham 5y ago
Yeah I don't think anyone has a solution as to what to do with online publications. It's a rock and a hard place situation. Users don't want to pay/be tracked and want quality content, and publishers either track the fuck out of users, or regretfully paywall stuff and lose a massive chunk of eyeballs. Brave at least is trying with their BAT stuff, but I don't think it's their main focus anymore, especially as they're releasing new products all the time now.
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  > I don't think anyone has a solution as to what to do with online publications Subsidize it, and even not necessarily by the government. Think of it as a non-profit run/owned by someone who makes money on something else, it's not like every single human activity has to be organized from the commercial motivation for it to be decently performed.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    There are a number of examples of this, including from before the web. National Review was run at a loss for years, subsidized by William F. Buckley Jr.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Online newspapers could solve this issue by directly (onsite) hosting ads for advertisers based on news post content with no tracking. You know, like they did from the mid 1800's until the late 2000s, or by following the crunchyroll system of paying people getting access to content before the free ad-funded tier does.
EduardoBautista 5y ago
A couple of years ago I stumbled upon a promotion for a $5/month subscription to the Wall Street Journal. This apparently was not a promotional offer since I still have this pricing. The only catch is that I can’t use the iPad app, but it’s a fine compromise in my opinion. I will take this subscription with me to the grave. The only other news subscription I have is for Bloomberg, which, after trying to cancel my trial, I was giving an offer of $20 a month for one year. I don’t think I would pay for these at their full prices. The main issue is that there are quite a few sites worth paying for, but not all at once, and even less at their non-promotional prices. Edit: I believe the WSJ was testing out the $5/month plan since I have never encountered it again. It was presented as a “Mobile Digital” plan.
- leephillips 5y ago
  It’s like a rent controlled apartment in New York. You should pass the subscription deal unto your descendants, who will not reveal that it’s a different person reading those WSJ articles.

13 points by leephillips 5y ago

Yeah I don't think anyone has a solution as to what to do with online publications. It's a rock and a hard place situation. Users don't want to pay/be tracked and want quality content, and publishers either track the fuck out of users, or regretfully paywall stuff and lose a massive chunk of eyeballs. Brave at least is trying with their BAT stuff, but I don't think it's their main focus anymore, especially as they're releasing new products all the time now.

Joker_vD 5y ago
> I don't think anyone has a solution as to what to do with online publications Subsidize it, and even not necessarily by the government. Think of it as a non-profit run/owned by someone who makes money on something else, it's not like every single human activity has to be organized from the commercial motivation for it to be decently performed.
- leephillips 5y ago
  There are a number of examples of this, including from before the web. National Review was run at a loss for years, subsidized by William F. Buckley Jr.
BizarroLand 5y ago
Online newspapers could solve this issue by directly (onsite) hosting ads for advertisers based on news post content with no tracking. You know, like they did from the mid 1800's until the late 2000s, or by following the crunchyroll system of paying people getting access to content before the free ad-funded tier does.

EduardoBautista 5y ago

A couple of years ago I stumbled upon a promotion for a $5/month subscription to the Wall Street Journal. This apparently was not a promotional offer since I still have this pricing. The only catch is that I can’t use the iPad app, but it’s a fine compromise in my opinion. I will take this subscription with me to the grave. The only other news subscription I have is for Bloomberg, which, after trying to cancel my trial, I was giving an offer of $20 a month for one year. I don’t think I would pay for these at their full prices. The main issue is that there are quite a few sites worth paying for, but not all at once, and even less at their non-promotional prices. Edit: I believe the WSJ was testing out the $5/month plan since I have never encountered it again. It was presented as a “Mobile Digital” plan.

leephillips 5y ago
It’s like a rent controlled apartment in New York. You should pass the subscription deal unto your descendants, who will not reveal that it’s a different person reading those WSJ articles.