4 ms·

One crucial difference is that you could walk up to a newsstand and buy an issue whenever you felt like it. Online, there's very other options that don't inclu

One crucial difference is that you could walk up to a newsstand and buy an issue whenever you felt like it. Online, there's very other options that don't include a perpetual agreement.

xp84 2y ago
This is so true. I'd anonymously pump 50 cents into those paywalls on a daily basis if that were a way to gain access to an article, but the only online option any newspaper or magazine I know of provides is an auto-renewing subscription of $5-10 a month, with the deal being a bit better if you go annual. Problem is, there are like 6,000 newspapers and magazines in the country whose articles I might stumble upon and like to read. No, I'm not subscribing to the Akron Times, the San Diego Tribune, and the Boston Herald just because someone linked me an article from each today.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Many publications have tried the 50c for an article approach, and it just isn't worth it. Those one-off purchases at best make for a single digit percentage of revenue. What could possibly work is mega syndication, where you pay a monthly subscription and get access to a large amount of newspapers, á la Spotify or YouTube. But for that to happen, newspapers need to change their attitude and start seeing themselves not as arbiters of truth, but producers of news as a commodity. Then you could even have "enemy" newspapers on the same subscription. Just as you have rock, classical and rap on the same subscription. The question is, does the population actually want news or do they want to read something that confirms their world view and snugly fits with their chosen political tribe?
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    That's pretty close to what I'm suggesting, and a superbundling / megasyndication is one possible shape (or at least interim waypoint) to getting there. The term I've used in the past is "universal content syndication".

One crucial difference is that you could walk up to a newsstand and buy an issue whenever you felt like it. Online, there's very other options that don't include a perpetual agreement.

xp84 2y ago

This is so true. I'd anonymously pump 50 cents into those paywalls on a daily basis if that were a way to gain access to an article, but the only online option any newspaper or magazine I know of provides is an auto-renewing subscription of $5-10 a month, with the deal being a bit better if you go annual. Problem is, there are like 6,000 newspapers and magazines in the country whose articles I might stumble upon and like to read. No, I'm not subscribing to the Akron Times, the San Diego Tribune, and the Boston Herald just because someone linked me an article from each today.

carlosjobim 2y ago
Many publications have tried the 50c for an article approach, and it just isn't worth it. Those one-off purchases at best make for a single digit percentage of revenue. What could possibly work is mega syndication, where you pay a monthly subscription and get access to a large amount of newspapers, á la Spotify or YouTube. But for that to happen, newspapers need to change their attitude and start seeing themselves not as arbiters of truth, but producers of news as a commodity. Then you could even have "enemy" newspapers on the same subscription. Just as you have rock, classical and rap on the same subscription. The question is, does the population actually want news or do they want to read something that confirms their world view and snugly fits with their chosen political tribe?
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  That's pretty close to what I'm suggesting, and a superbundling / megasyndication is one possible shape (or at least interim waypoint) to getting there. The term I've used in the past is "universal content syndication".