|
|
|
|
|
by acpigeon
5004 days ago
|
|
It bothers me that the only paid model for content is to pay for the source. I enjoy some pieces the New York Times publishes, but I don't want to pay for the whole pipeline. I would however, be happy to pay something for individual pieces of quality content. Additionally, much of the content I enjoy reading is produced by people not in it for the money, so there is no way to pay for it even if it did have monetary value to me. |
|
If you pay for the whole pipeline, then the provider of that pipeline cares deeply about their brand. This gives them incentives to get the news right.
If you pay piecemeal (with money or eyeballs, doesn't matter), then the provider of that pipeline cares deeply about how effective the headline is at grabbing your attention. The quality of the article doesn't matter so much because it doesn't affect your buy decision. And what people don't care about, gets shortchanged.
The internet has caused us to move from a subscription model to a piecemeal model, and the quality of news has suffered. But this is not new. A hundred years ago the "yellow press" was also on a piecemeal model. So, more recently, were British tabloids. And they were crap in the same way that the internet news today is crap.
Unless you're either relying on a third party curation that you trust, or are purchasing the brand, quality is going to suffer.