|
|
|
|
|
by brudgers
3595 days ago
|
|
I agree. I see part of the value in a newspaper [irrespective of material form] is as an aggregate. It filters against hard and soft criteria and that's what is worth paying for [for some people]. The pay-per-article model might work if it can meet that function and offers better value than a 'newspaper subscription' and offers better value than the free internet to some market segment. The question is not 'Are there profits to be had when I can charge a penny every time someone reads an article on the internet?'. The hard question is 'How do I show people it is worth paying me a penny to read an article on the internet?' |
|
But in the current age, bundling seems to be broken for 2 particular reasons:
- Most people discover content via their social networks (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit etc) where they have invested a long time to curate a set of individual journalists, public figures and acquaintances rather than orgs.
- Diversity of audience expects a rather focussed content curation from different view points rather than all encompassing single identity.
This makes me believe that going forward in future, people should be able to show appraisal to unique pieces rather than a wrapper organisation, based on their quality. This might be encourage grass root level curation by people who are incentivised for their effort rather than association with an existing brand.