11 ms·

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Fbfea0069-4143-4e4b-accb-9712ce95a282 https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2..

• kmlx 5y ago
  https://www.ft.com/products https://www.ft.com/products or if you want to actually support proper journalism.
  • yummybear 5y ago
    Not OC, but the thing with most of these international media articles is I want to read an ft.com article maybe once per year. Tomorrow it's another media with another article. Why would I want a subscription to read one single article?
    • guerrilla 5y ago
      Sounds like you just hit on a business model... multi-subscriptions to news. You could change the world with that.
      • 19h 5y ago
        I'm paying for Apple News+ and still get asked to pay for NYT. Absolutely frustrating..
      • phasersout 5y ago
        They could also just get more flexible with the product they are offering. For example selling single articles for let's say 50 cents or so.
        • guerrilla 5y ago
          Another business model... some kind of system that all sites could use. Wow how different that would be...
          • bigpeopleareold 5y ago
            Media companies themselves prefer traditional subscriptions, so this really didn't work out. I don't exactly understand the business behind it since I am a developer, just that I know about this from people I work with. (EDIT: But I see about Blendle now - I really hope it works for them.)
            • iustin94 5y ago
              Pretty sure it has something to do with "recurrent revenue". Having 100 subscriptions means you have a guaranteed that the in the next month you will get 100 * cost in. On the other hand being a pay perview model leaves you to the risk of having high fluctuation of costs. Payperview I see it favored for content providers who provide high cost content once in a while. On the other hand, making a subscription based model works better for content that you put out fast and at a relativelly low cost IMO
              • guerrilla 5y ago
                That only works if you can get enough to stay in business... It seems they're barely making it from what I hear.
        • ciphol 5y ago
          If I could pay 50 cents for an interesting-looking article AND be guaranteed they would not use my email/CC to spam me or add extra charges in the future - I would jump on it.
        • kvathupo 5y ago
          I'd buy into that model. I'm interested in hearing how this has been explored in the past. People have mentioned Blendle, but it seems to be in Beta hell. The business model strikes me as the issue. I'm curious if one could find success by allowing ads, and cutting the aggregator's cut from 30%...
      • bryanlarsen 5y ago
        Blendle is perhaps the most successful with that, but they're definitely not changing the world. I'd post a Blendle link to the article, but they don't appear to have FT, just FTWeekend.
        • guerrilla 5y ago
          Is it even offered in English? I'm just getting Dutch and German
      • stjohnswarts 5y ago
        or micropayments for the article. maybe $1
  • rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    I’d support it, if it didn’t cost $10/month on each damn website to read one random article a month.
    • ivanmontillam 5y ago
      Someone's gotta invent the iTunes of articles.
      • rad_gruchalski 5y ago
        Many people have been talking about it. Apparently the issue is that publishers do not see beyond subscriptions. There was an article once here where someone was describing exactly that problem. I don’t have a link, though.
        • namibj 5y ago
          German Heise publisher will sell you individual magazine articles, though.