3 ms·

>so I could read a single article for $0.10 or something along those lines. But there is "something along those lines"; it's called becoming a paid subscriber.

>so I could read a single article for $0.10 or something along those lines. But there is "something along those lines"; it's called becoming a paid subscriber. When you amortize the expense across every article, you may even be getting a deal! The fact that the example expense you'd be willing to incur to read content you actually enjoy is ten cents speaks to why this model won't work.

apantel 3y ago
Content just isn’t worth a lot because nobody really needs any particular piece of information all that much; and if they do really need a piece of information, chances are it is available in many places.
Thrymr 3y ago
Sure, but we all have subscription fatigue. Say I subscribe to the New York Times and the Atlantic. But sometimes I like to read articles in the Washington Post or the New Yorker. How many subscriptions are enough? It's just like streaming fragmentation with Netflix, Apple+, Amazon Prime, Hulu, ad infinitum.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
That "works", somewhat, if you want to get all your news from one place. That's the traditional newspaper model: most people don't get a dozen papers delivered. But many people do read articles on dozens of different sites in a month. And that's a good thing; a world in which people get their news from a variety of different sources seems like a fundamentally better world. Newspapers and news subscriptions were financially viable in a world where most people had a subscription and that's where they got most of their news. They may not be financially viable in a world in which most people don't have or want to read only one or two sources of news. And that's fine.
infecto 3y ago
Don’t get hung up on the price I listed, it’s just an example which is dependent on publication and article length/content. Your argument is pretty weak too. Of course I could subscribe but obviously I don’t for any number of reasons. I am saying I wish I could pay on a per article price. Sorry for wanting to pay for the content I consume.

apantel 3y ago

Content just isn’t worth a lot because nobody really needs any particular piece of information all that much; and if they do really need a piece of information, chances are it is available in many places.

Thrymr 3y ago

Sure, but we all have subscription fatigue. Say I subscribe to the New York Times and the Atlantic. But sometimes I like to read articles in the Washington Post or the New Yorker. How many subscriptions are enough? It's just like streaming fragmentation with Netflix, Apple+, Amazon Prime, Hulu, ad infinitum.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

That "works", somewhat, if you want to get all your news from one place. That's the traditional newspaper model: most people don't get a dozen papers delivered. But many people do read articles on dozens of different sites in a month. And that's a good thing; a world in which people get their news from a variety of different sources seems like a fundamentally better world. Newspapers and news subscriptions were financially viable in a world where most people had a subscription and that's where they got most of their news. They may not be financially viable in a world in which most people don't have or want to read only one or two sources of news. And that's fine.

infecto 3y ago

Don’t get hung up on the price I listed, it’s just an example which is dependent on publication and article length/content. Your argument is pretty weak too. Of course I could subscribe but obviously I don’t for any number of reasons. I am saying I wish I could pay on a per article price. Sorry for wanting to pay for the content I consume.