[tuna-piano]

It's interesting, I assume many on here could afford to pay for WSJ, but don't, because the WSJ makes up only a small percentage of the content they want to read.

The answer seems obvious - the industry needs an unlimited Spotify model that has the vast majority of content providers, and then pays out to the content providers by total minutes read. Why this hasn't happened yet is very interesting to me.

The existing model for journalism seems to be similiar to if there was a Spotify type service for each record label - and you had to subscribe to 10 labels to listen to the music you wanted to listen to. This model made sense when there was a marginal cost (printing and delivering) - but that cost is basically gone for online readers.

I love good journalism from the WSJ, NYTimes, WashPost, and many others. But no way am I going to subscribe to all of them - even though I want all of the content. Micropayments seem like way too much friction, and a decision (is this article worth it?) that is such a pain for consumers. Why can't they switch to the Spotify model?

[tomdale]

I use https://blendle.com, which is similar to what you describe. It really has diversified the number of sources I read.

[tuna-piano]

Is that a micropayment model though? I can't imagine wanting to be bothered by paying for everything I read. For some reason, paying for stuff, even if only 25c, makes me think "Is it worth it?", and I hate that feeling.

[HelloMcFly]

Does any share of Blendle go to the content providers, or is it exclusively delivered to Blendle along?

[55555]

Totally agree. I would pay 50 cents per month, but I don't want to manage 50 different 50 cent subscriptions.