Alt view 3: the other real problem is that not enough of us are willing to pay for news, so we get the click-bait ad-driven news we deserve.
We're willing. They just insist we pay by subscribing, instead of per-article.
-
-
just like EVERY software company, netflix, cable or any company with high fixed costs. Subscription revenue is not a luxury.
-
per article pricing would be a nice thing to offer but we can't hold them to an unproven business model. Not for survival.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
too much cognitive friction in micropayments , tipping likely a better solution
-
Tipping overestimates altruism. "Mental transaction costs" can be overcome by passion matched with convenience.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
the future might look something like
@21dotco's machine to machine payment; seamless & in the backgroundThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
microtransactions with BTC for the win
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and even when the New York Times adds subscriptions, they make you call a 1-800 number to cancel yours.
-
That plus autorenewals is why I won't subscribe. It's like a memory leak.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Consumers lack privacy, business lack return, content providers lack revenue there has to be a better way, micropayment not it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
how about a subscription model where the monthly price varies according to how many articles you read last month?
-
All subscription models where they deliberately make it hard to cancel are out. (You have to *phone* the NYT.)
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.