[chc]

I think you might have lost track of the conversation. Paywalls were already suggested, and this subthread was talking about the problems of paywalls — e.g. they segment the Internet into inaccessible walled gardens, they're inconvenient, they exclude a large chunk of the world's population, they kill your readership. Somebody suggested that he thought the best approach was to just do ads, and if you really can't stand having your ads blocked, just block users who are running ad blockers. Then it was pointed out that this is a Sisyphean task, and you replied talking about paywalls as the solution. So bringing up paywalls doesn't really seem to have a point here, unless you have a new insight into how to get around their many and numerous drawbacks.

[manigandham]

Those drawbacks to paywalls are only when compared to the ease and free approach of the ad model. When the ad model stops working, there wont be anything left but paywalls and they wont be "inconvenient" because there is no other way that is convenient.

The simple truth is that publishers need to make money to produce content. Ads were a way to allow free access while making revenue. If users keep using this blunt approach and taking just the content without letting the publishers recoup costs, there is an absolutely inevitable future ahead of paywalls and walled gardens everywhere.

We're already seeing it now where the open web is being destroyed by adblockers on desktop and now mobile, while Facebook has instant articles and Apple now has their official news app.

Everyone who uses adblock today better be prepared to have their content either funneled through certain major silos or pay up for their favorite sites.

[Nadya]

So ignoring the transparent featured-posts/content model (ie: used by CSS Tricks) which AdBlockers don't have a way to block, there's also the donation model (doesn't scale well, usually).

I've donated to many sites that use donations as their primary means of staying afloat and many of these sites have lasted years with this as their model of revenue. The users of the site understand that the site might live on a month-to-month basis (although surplus from one month is generally put into savings in case a month falls short) and if they wish for the site to stick up, someone's gotta be forking over some money. My favorite local FM radio station also runs off of donations/sponsorships and does not play ads between songs. They've been in the radio business for well over 40 years. It can work if enough value is provided that people are willing to donate money.

Quite frankly - there isn't a strong business in presenting information, because on the internet, everyone has the means to present information with many being specialists in their field and doing it for free because they enjoy educating others about what they do.

Sure, I can pay for some write up on the recent CERN study from a journalist from some well-known publisher with at least some level of professional journalism. Or I can get it from one of the CERN scientists who wrote about the impacts of their findings for the "general layman" in one of their personal blogs for free.

I have a pretty high level of respect for (truly) professional journalists. The kind that risk their lives to get news that otherwise wouldn't be reported on. But many of those journalists aren't exactly in it for the well-paid job, but because they believe this information is important for people to know about. For example, the ones who report for War is Boring (especialy David Axe, who I enjoy reading)

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/about