3 ms·

People wants to pay for content, but publishers are either not working on content worth paying for or don’t want you to purchase, they want you to rent instead.

duxup 2y ago
Chicken and the egg there as far as "worth paying for" although I'd argue that's not really any different than "don't want to pay".
- StableAlkyne 2y ago
  If it's "worth paying for," they can just squeeze more money out of the equation until it's barely worth the cost. For a real world example, just look at the scientific journal system - researchers pay upwards of $5k to publish (after spending however many tens to hundreds of thousands on the science, out of their own pocket), readers can pay $50 per article or their institution can subscribe for tens of thousands of dollars (if they're lucky and have a good negotiator). Journals do nothing of value aside from hosting the PDFs (which absolutely does not cost $50/download) and facilitating anonymous peer review (which amounts to sending emails to a few academics who will review it for free, at no cost to the journal). Even content that is worth paying for, like research, will quickly reach an equilibrium that maximizes profit while minimizing effort.
paulddraper 2y ago
The overwhelming majority do not want to pay for online publications. They are willing to view ads (proving they value the material) but as a rule are unwilling to pay any cash.
ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
Decades of internet use has shown me that people absolutely do not want to pay for content. The average person will choose free+ads over paying every time.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  A large subset of those will choose free+ads with ad-block, so free+free. Then they will complain that the internet is full of trash content that doesn't suite them.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    >Then they will complain that the internet is full of trash content that doesn't suite them. This will happen regardless if you paid for content or not. The natural world is filled with parasites, it is an effective evolutionary strategy.
  - techjamie 2y ago
    As someone that blocks ads with a vengeance, I'll turn off my ad blocker when advertising companies turn off their privacy invasion, and stop running ads for criminals and scammers.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      As another person that blocks ads with vengeance, I'll turn off my ad blocker only when advertising companies go bankrupt and effectively disappear from the face of the planet. Even non-surveilling, non-criminal advertising is still brain poison. Why would I want to ever expose myself to that? Especially when on the margin, the damage inflicted to my life by ads is usually comparable to, or greater than, the value provided by the piece of content nested between those ads.
- skydhash 2y ago
  Free is free, and you can choose not to look at the ads. No wonder people are taking this option. In the process, it cheapens the whole thing.
pjc50 2y ago
The fundamental issue is that it's unreliable to know if you'll like content before you've experienced it. But afterwards you're not going to pay because you have already experienced it. It's a "market for lemons".
- skydhash 2y ago
  It was always a bet. You make something and hope that people like it enough to pay for it. Just like any business. Why should businesses be entitled to my money if their offerings have no value to me?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > Why should businesses be entitled to my money if their offerings have no value to me? That's completely the wrong framing for this idea. The problem is that you don't know if it's valuable until you've bought it, unless the seller gives it for free and just trusts you to pay later in the event you did. If I see a new-to-me fruit in the supermarket, I can buy one to see if I like it, and I can be reasonably confident that my first taste will be a reliable indicator of if I should buy more. People used to do this with entire newspapers, but (1) newspapers have been derided for taking nonsense for basically as long as we would even recognise them to be newspapers in the modern sense, and (2) dividing them up into separate web pages per article makes the challenge greater, as it's gone from 50p for the entire broadsheet based on the front page headline as an advert, to a "please subscribe" banner after seeing the headline and generic intro paragraph for a random article you were probably linked to because someone else thought it was interesting.
Ekaros 2y ago
I'm not honestly sure if people want to pay for content. They want to pay for convenience or value. That is to have content available easy. But not necessarily for content if they can avoid it or get it cheaper. Not that there is no sub-groups that will happily pay.

duxup 2y ago

Chicken and the egg there as far as "worth paying for" although I'd argue that's not really any different than "don't want to pay".

StableAlkyne 2y ago
If it's "worth paying for," they can just squeeze more money out of the equation until it's barely worth the cost. For a real world example, just look at the scientific journal system - researchers pay upwards of $5k to publish (after spending however many tens to hundreds of thousands on the science, out of their own pocket), readers can pay $50 per article or their institution can subscribe for tens of thousands of dollars (if they're lucky and have a good negotiator). Journals do nothing of value aside from hosting the PDFs (which absolutely does not cost $50/download) and facilitating anonymous peer review (which amounts to sending emails to a few academics who will review it for free, at no cost to the journal). Even content that is worth paying for, like research, will quickly reach an equilibrium that maximizes profit while minimizing effort.

paulddraper 2y ago

The overwhelming majority do not want to pay for online publications. They are willing to view ads (proving they value the material) but as a rule are unwilling to pay any cash.

ThrowawayTestr 2y ago

Decades of internet use has shown me that people absolutely do not want to pay for content. The average person will choose free+ads over paying every time.

Workaccount2 2y ago
A large subset of those will choose free+ads with ad-block, so free+free. Then they will complain that the internet is full of trash content that doesn't suite them.
- pixl97 2y ago
  >Then they will complain that the internet is full of trash content that doesn't suite them. This will happen regardless if you paid for content or not. The natural world is filled with parasites, it is an effective evolutionary strategy.
- techjamie 2y ago
  As someone that blocks ads with a vengeance, I'll turn off my ad blocker when advertising companies turn off their privacy invasion, and stop running ads for criminals and scammers.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    As another person that blocks ads with vengeance, I'll turn off my ad blocker only when advertising companies go bankrupt and effectively disappear from the face of the planet. Even non-surveilling, non-criminal advertising is still brain poison. Why would I want to ever expose myself to that? Especially when on the margin, the damage inflicted to my life by ads is usually comparable to, or greater than, the value provided by the piece of content nested between those ads.
skydhash 2y ago
Free is free, and you can choose not to look at the ads. No wonder people are taking this option. In the process, it cheapens the whole thing.

pjc50 2y ago

The fundamental issue is that it's unreliable to know if you'll like content before you've experienced it. But afterwards you're not going to pay because you have already experienced it. It's a "market for lemons".

skydhash 2y ago
It was always a bet. You make something and hope that people like it enough to pay for it. Just like any business. Why should businesses be entitled to my money if their offerings have no value to me?
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Why should businesses be entitled to my money if their offerings have no value to me? That's completely the wrong framing for this idea. The problem is that you don't know if it's valuable until you've bought it, unless the seller gives it for free and just trusts you to pay later in the event you did. If I see a new-to-me fruit in the supermarket, I can buy one to see if I like it, and I can be reasonably confident that my first taste will be a reliable indicator of if I should buy more. People used to do this with entire newspapers, but (1) newspapers have been derided for taking nonsense for basically as long as we would even recognise them to be newspapers in the modern sense, and (2) dividing them up into separate web pages per article makes the challenge greater, as it's gone from 50p for the entire broadsheet based on the front page headline as an advert, to a "please subscribe" banner after seeing the headline and generic intro paragraph for a random article you were probably linked to because someone else thought it was interesting.

Ekaros 2y ago

I'm not honestly sure if people want to pay for content. They want to pay for convenience or value. That is to have content available easy. But not necessarily for content if they can avoid it or get it cheaper. Not that there is no sub-groups that will happily pay.