Paul GrahamVerified account

News sites need to make money, and it's good for them to get customers to pay for their product like in any other business. Subscription-based models also are better able to support substantive writing than ad-based models.

100% agree news sites need to make money. But is there any reason for BB to charge $40 a month? The NYTimes has a newsroom 10x larger and only charges $8 Netflix has $100b with of films online for $15month. Seems they have overpriced themselves

There is room in the market for a pay per article (a la Brave's BAT) model. Why is this not a thing?

Because reporting is expensive and news sites need steady revenue.

They would gain money from such a model, I'm guessing. But that no one is doing it suggests me I'm missing something

Why do you think they'd gain, rather than lose? My intuition tells me the opposite (consider that SaaS companies charge recurring monthly fees and not "pay per interaction with the app" or whatever).

Because many people who are subscription averse would pay. Also, with SaaS apps you use the whole thing. With media, you pick in a much more narrow way. I only read Tyler from that Bloomberg site

"Because many people who are subscription averse would pay." lol yes but would this be enough to outweigh the loss from gettin reliable higher $$ recurring revenue from a smaller base is the actual question