Live data from Hacker News

The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

digiday.com

41–50 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://blendle.com/ seems to meet your needs.

Thanks for the link! I just signed up requesting a beta invite. $0.25 per article, with an instant refund sounds fair. I have wanted access to The Economist, etc., but not enough for a full subscription.

The Economist is the only news organ I have consistently found to be worth subscribing to, despite its faults. The stuff in it that you think you're not interested in is almost invariably worth knowing about.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#42
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

That's not the problem. I might be willing pay a lot for news. What I don't want is 100 different newspaper subscriptions. And to say that you should just pick a favorite newspaper and get everything from there is like demanding you decide what books you want before visiting a library.

That's exactly the problem with the person I replied to. Maybe there's a micropayment solution that someone will crack the nut on after decades of people talking about it. But that solution is definitely not 5¢ an article for WSJ quality news.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#43
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)

Why is a full feed of quality news worth less to you than Netflix?

Netflix costs too much for what it is. News that you can find anywhere else is certainly not worth much. Yes, depending upon how you wish it to be documented and such, it may be worth it but I don't understand the want to see any more news than the local news and what Google can provide. I'm not against supporting; I just wonder why anyone would spend more than an hour a day reading news from one source.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#44
post #32

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…

The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

> The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

What amount would be close to the value they make from ad revenue?

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#45
post #20

Paywalls have been tightening up recently. The Washington Post now has stronger anti-ad-blocking. So do the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. The New York Times is still accessible. It's a concern that the newspapers which have actual reporters in the field are disappearing behind paywalls.

I'm curious as to how much their viewership has dropped. I haven't read an LA times article since they banned ad blockers. Not that they care much about viewers that only cost them money.

NY Times digital subscriptions have soared over the past few months and right now they apparently have 1.6 million digital subscribers.[1] Though, revenue is still down as their print advertising income continues to contract.

1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/media/new-york-t...

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#46

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…

https://blendle.com/ seems to meet your needs.

I really enjoyed Blendle for a while, but I found that I frequently ended up paying for articles on the Blendle platform that I could have accessed for free from the publisher.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#48

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…

I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)

Not sure if this is a good deal, but take a look: https://myaccount.news.com.au/theaustralian/subscribe?pkgDef...

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#49
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

> The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue. What amount would be close to the value they make from ad revenue?

I would speculate they make between $5 - $20 CPM and they show 3-5 ads per article view. That puts the revenue between 1.5¢ and 10¢ per article pageview.

Micropayment approaches and payment processor rates vary, but I'd generalize to probably 30% take rate. So assume 3.5¢ to 7¢ payment per article. Do you pay for every article you load? Do you pay again if you load the article twice? What if you don't like the article and don't want to pay? I don't think it's quite as simple as 3.5¢ to 7¢ because no one has really proven this model to work yet.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#50
post #32

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…

The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

Let's say you're standing in a field strewn with gold bars. A man comes up to you and offers to sell you a gold bar for $400,000. You point out that you are standing among hundreds of gold bars, all of them free for the taking. He points out that it was a lot of hard work extracting gold from thousands of tons of ore, casting it, assaying it, etc.

Just because something cost a lot to make, doesn't mean it's worth a lot. Sorry.

Post reply on HN