Comments on: One problem with newspaper micropayments A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Daniel Hess Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:01:42 +0000 Scott Karp nails the issue. emo-to-newspapers-content-doesnt-matter- without-the-package?source=article_sb_pi cks

Memo to Newspapers: Content Doesn’t Matter Without the Package

“An individual content item on the web, without a package, has marginal value approaching zero — and attempting to charge for an individual item of content is unlikely to change that. What you CAN charge for is the package.”

By: Ira Stoll Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:41:54 +0000 At I have a hybrid model where the content is free but you get more extra stuff (access to the editor, private events, a bow tie) if you pay. We’ll see how it works.

By: Daniel Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:59:11 +0000 Pick what you like to pay for.
I wanted to pay a blog for its good content, but there wasn’t a good way.

“Thought-provoking value” as Brian put it, is worth something to the users. Right now, there is no outlet to express that value beside a “Great article!” comment.

I believe there is unrealized goodwill that readers want to pay for good content. Just not forced to. I’ve considering a system where a button like those ‘share this’ links, can let users tip the website easily. So I created one after months of seeing nothing online.

By: Barry Ritholtz Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:23:45 +0000 UThe current newspaper business model is clearly broken, and its a given that many papers today won’t survive. The assumption is WSJ, NYT, WaPo are the survivors. Even that is not a sure thing.

What are the alternatives? Annual payments only seem to work with specialized journals and financial papers (think WSJ). The Times Select experiment was a bust.

That leaves micro-payments per article, or something else entirely —

Its pretty clear that the current situation is heading to a massive downsizing of journalism — and that doesn’t serve democracy very well…

By: Willis Darpopia Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:18:33 +0000 Reuters pays you a salary, right? They have money to pay you because they are paid for their information. If they gave it away free for the goodness of all humankind, you would be in your mother’s basement.

Don’t you write about finance?

By: zach Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:15:48 +0000 What value have you provided Reuters? This isn’t a dig, I honestly want to know what the value you’ve provided to them is. Not internally estimated or good will. How much has Reuters’ revenue increased due to your blog?

By: Shnaps Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:27:54 +0000 How about an Dying-Newspaper-Wheel-of-Fortune-Increme ntal-Tiered-Pricing model?
Z’s and X’s and whatnot are free to everyone, the ‘good’ consonants and a few vowels are provided for the regular subscribers and a full set of vowels are only available those who opt for a ‘premium’ subscription.

W_lcom_ to your TH_ N_W YORK TIM_S hom_pag_, Shnaps!

anybody want to buy a vowel?

By: Christopher Rollason Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:43:30 +0000 If I have to pay a newspsper with a separate transaction, even if it’s as little as a tenth of a eurocent, for EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE I READ, it will slow down the reading and researching process enormously. The whole point about the Internet is that links take the user to their destination immediately. The press barons are threatening to violate the founding Internet principle that everything is connected. Also, if an article I have paid for turns out to be rubbish I will be annoyed. If I have to pay, can it please be per issue, as with a print journal, and NOT per article!! Anyway, I am sure that, like many, I will simply gravitate to those sites that remain free and stick to the basic principles that KNOWLEDGE IS TO BE SHARED and that THE INTERNET EXISTS FOR THE COLLECTIVE ADVANCEMENT OF HUMANITY.

By: Brian Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:21:08 +0000 Actually, I was thinking the other day as I flipped through my dead-tree WSJ that between you and Barry, I get “more” thought-provoking value, more consistently from your blogs than the Diary of the American Dream (I own a small web business). And the chaff to wade through: the one-note editorial pages (guest columnist: Sarah Palin!), the sports page that does zero for serious sports fans, and the Consumption Class stuff that reads like a 2007 time capsule.

And as you allude to above, what are the chances that I’ll completely miss a Must Read with the fair use excerpts?

So when Rupert sends me the renewal notice in January: thanks, but no thanks.

By: SC Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:02:07 +0000 Okay, so you’re saying two things:
1) It’s impossible to effectively implement a micropayment system because there’s no real way to keep bloggers and others on the Internet from redistributing newspaper content.
2) Newspapers can make money on the Internet by building a relationship with readers and selling that relationship.

But aren’t these two things contradictory? If a newspaper website’s relationship with its readers comes from the content it distributes, and it’s impossible for the newspaper to hold a monopoly on the distribution of the content it produces on the Internet, the newspaper can’t monetize the relationship effectively because anyone else can duplicate it in whole or in part. I’d argue that that’s a facet of what’s actually happening on the internet–newspapers lose ad revenue to blogs and other aggregators that republish their content. They also lose control of ad inventory related to their content, which makes it hard for them to improve their pricing models.

Part of this problem is a free-rider problem. In one way or another, newspapers should be paid for the content they generate. If they can’t exercise any control over that content on the internet, they can’t effectively demand to be paid for it in any way. Their ability to enforce micropayments won’t be perfect, but it’ll be better than nothing.