3 ms·
You don’t but you have to put a base price on content for it to work. The point of a $0.50 access fee is that all articles individually would cost $0.50. Then y
by righthand 1y ago
You don’t but you have to put a base price on content for it to work. The point of a $0.50 access fee is that all articles individually would cost $0.50. Then you charge a subscription to unlimited access.
No one’s successfully done this because when they do they want to individually price articles and consumers like you for some reason want to attach a per-word-price for each article.
Implement a legitimate system and people will use it. Implement a system with work arounds and people will use the work arounds.
- rkomorn 1y ago> Implement a legitimate system and people will use it. This sounds like no true Scotsman. I guess it's tautological that nobody's tried the right model because nobody's been successful.
- righthand 1y agoIf you implement subscriptions + micropayments but let all the web scrapers through that’s not a sound new attempt at a system. That’s the same leaky system with micropayments slapped on top. See?
- rkomorn 1y agoI guess. Ancestor comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45302115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45302115 already starts with the context of not wanting to subscribe to a random site, so I don't know how we don't end back up exactly there to have a non-leaky system with micropayments on top?
- righthand 1y agoBut the solution to not wanting to subscribe is to pay the $0.50 or leave. Before it was: find a way around paywall or leave. The OP maybe wants free things only?
- warkdarrior 1y agoWhen it comes to digital stuff, everything wants free things only.
- afavour 1y ago> No one’s successfully done this because when they do they want to individually price articles But different articles are worth different amounts of money. You can't really escape that fact. If a news org has spent three months doing a deep dive into political corruption and created a blockbuster report on it, in what world can it be justified for that to be the same price as someone recapping last night's episode of Survivor? This is all covered in the article I linked to. > Implement a legitimate system By whose definition of legitimate is the question, I guess. I think it's very easy to stand on the outside and say "duh, just do it the right way!". It's not like things haven't been tried. - Blendle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle - Scroll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_(web_service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_(web_service) - Google Contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor - Axate: https://www.axate.com https://www.axate.com - Coil (to an extent): https://coil.com/ https://coil.com/ All these people tried to solve this problem and weren't able to.
- righthand 1y agoThen don’t put the more expensive articles as accessible for $0.50. Keep them behind the subscription. Users with subscriptions are the only ones who really want to read longer articles anyways.