3 ms·
Is there some material that explains why news websites are against aggregators that provide news from a variety of sources, such that I don't have to pay a hund
by supriyo-biswas 3y ago
Is there some material that explains why news websites are against aggregators that provide news from a variety of sources, such that I don't have to pay a hundred news outlets?
This, to me, seems like a much better model since the revenue can be distributed to whatever set of publications I've read for that month.
- massysett 3y agoIsn’t that Apple News?
- Kerrick 3y agoTraditionally your local newspaper was exactly this. They paid exorbitant sums of money to _wire services_ for the right to republish their stories, and readers had access to both the local reporting and the national/global/interest content with a single local subscription.
- yorwba 3y agoIf you used such an aggregator, it would quickly become obvious that original reporting is only a small fraction of what news outlets publish, with the rest being made of slightly edited newswires and press releases, as well as fast-follow reporting on other media reports. In other words, all news sources are already aggregators, and exclusive content is how they attempt to differentiate themselves and win market share from their competitors.
- XorNot 3y agoI mean, overtly a market place with lower friction of customer mobility is bad for the sellers because they have to compete more (a counterpoint is that a race to the bottom to write "clickbait" is the end state as well, so it's not all self-interest).
- mbgerring 3y agoA lot of companies have tried this and it doesn’t work financially.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoHere you go: https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/ In brief, all value is captured by monopolies, aggregators necessarily are monopolies, news websites want to be monopolies themselves.