| This is phrased almost as a guessing game, so forensic analysis of RFS 1 is in order. The phrase "you can't have aggregators without content" and suggestion that a writer is needed implies that this is content creation, not aggregation. One way to start from making money is to let users pay to get what they want. Here's one place it could lead: Let readers bid (or paying subscribers vote) on what they want investigated or discussed. Journalists are actually quite cheap, so a few hundred interested parties could fund a weeklong investigation by a professional journalist. You could also solicit leads and research assistance from the readers. Then, once the story is published you still get any ad revenue, which could be targeted to the audience that you serve. Journalists could liveblog updates as they investigate, encouraging supporters to give additional funds to help them through the search. The editorial staff could float suggestions for stories and let users vote with their wallets on what they want investigated. In this way users could also directly support the journalists who do good work, and the organization would scale by the level of interest. Probably not what pg had in mind, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. |
So I'd modify your idea a bit -- have many short snippets about rumors/events that quickly introduces a subject, to build interest, and will be free to everyone. Then have followup stories that will be voted upon.