Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#91

Post by jasode »

NeutronBoy wrote: post #35
mindcrime wrote: post #28

Subscriptions are just the wrong model for news publishers. There's NO way I could possibly afford to subscribe to every news output I occasionally read news from, unless the subscriptions were so close to free as to be useless as a revenue source for the publisher. It's just not going to happen. What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. I'd be happy to pay you a f…

> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article The other side of the coin is that if you're a news organisation, "the economics just don't work" with micro payments. You can't fund a month long investigative report based on micropayments, even if it produces a prize-winning piece, if you don't have guaranteed income to support it. What happens if you spend the month in…

>You can't fund a month long investigative report based on micropayments,

But that type of expensive journalism also wasn't funded by subscriptions in the past. Woodword & Bernstein's long reporting on Watergate was funded by classified ads and advertising dollars from local businesses like car dealerships.

NYTimes was recently break-even and then somewhat profitable with digital subscriptions -- but they also had to reduce the headcount over the last 10 years to reduce costs. So far, no newspaper has successfully replaced all the previous ad dollars with digital subscription payments.

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#92

Post by TeMPOraL »

altcognito wrote: post #60
Flammy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Micro-payment per-article will only encourage "safe" journalism - articles that you know will resonate with your readers, rather than controversial pieces or in-depth, resource intensive research. I actually disagree, from what has happened when trying ads ads (basically micropayments in terms of $ amount per view), we get click bait and sensationalist headlines for any news source which focuses on income-per-artic…

Click bait for people that agree with it. "See what liberals/Trump did now!"

Clickbait for everyone. If you agree, you want to read it to confirm your beliefs. If you disagree, you want to read it to call bullshit and/or flame a bit in the comments sections. Publishers don't care, they get ad dollars either way. That's why so much of those clickbait articles are purposefully made outrage-inducing.

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#93

Post by magic_beans »

amelius wrote: post #77
jawns wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. Former news editor here. I have spent a loooong time thinking about how to help my beloved news industry find a payment model that works. I've become convinced that a "cable subscription" model has more promise than a micropayments model. Here's what's wrong with a micropayments model. Each microtransaction is an addition…

That's the model used by Flattr [1]. They started years ago. Not sure why adoption is taking so long. > Flattr is a browser add-on that intelligently measures your interaction with content on the websites you visit, and then automatically distributes the right amount of funds to those sites you engage with the most. [1] https://flattr.com/

How on earth could flattr remain neutral? Who's to say they wouldn't give more weight to the New York Times if the NYT gave them a commission?

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#94

Post by amelius »

magic_beans wrote: post #93
amelius wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the model used by Flattr [1]. They started years ago. Not sure why adoption is taking so long. > Flattr is a browser add-on that intelligently measures your interaction with content on the websites you visit, and then automatically distributes the right amount of funds to those sites you engage with the most. [1] https://flattr.com/

How on earth could flattr remain neutral? Who's to say they wouldn't give more weight to the New York Times if the NYT gave them a commission?

Well if they were not neutral, they would basically lose their business in the long run.

It's like we trust Google not to sell our data to third parties directly (only indirectly).

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#95

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

GoFundMe?

Patreon?

Those who could find people to buy what they are producing, are already doing it on social funding platforms.

The models that are struggling are those who are not able to sell what they have to sell... a product that not only sold ad-space but infoticles, just like infomartials on TV or product placement in movies, there was paid bias in articles. In the days of Internet, no body wants to watch ads, not in the sidebar clearly labeled as an ad, or in the center of the page in terms of a info(ar)ticle.

I would rather pay to hear the bias of the person speaking, than letting a corporation tell that person what he or she can or can't write. There is banding together of like minded people to pool resources together to keep making progress on a cause, much better model than a corporation. Much efficient use of funds, time, energy. The only one to loose is the investor or influence seeker, who would have to do much more digging than just walking into an top floor office with a check in hands.

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#96

Post by TeMPOraL »

sumeno wrote: post #71
infinityplus1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't they pay after reading the article and decide if it's worth it?

Why would they pay after they already read the article? If it is on the honor system people just aren't going to pay.

If you pay a fixed access fee either way, then it's just the matter of you deciding who gets the money. Since the money is already "spent", you may as well vote on the articles you like.

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#97

Post by test6554 »

jawns wrote: post #78
test6554 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you make some good points, but couldn't someone just buy 20 or 50 article credits from you in a single transaction and then choose which articles they want to use their credits on (no time limit and no counting credits toward articles they don't specifically say they want to use a credit for).

That's the way most micropayment systems currently work. No, it doesn't solve the problem, because really all you're doing is exchanging dollars for credits. You still have to decide, every time, whether you want to spend a certain number of credits to view a certain piece of content.

Users who purchased the credits go from unknown prospects to customers. All transaction fees are consolidated for better efficiency. From that point on, you are servicing a known paying customer rather than spending effort selling your wares. Each transaction that starts from a known person rather than an unknown user means the friction of that transaction can be much lower.

The user can simply click "read this article (1 credit)" while logged in. Then the article becomes accessible to them forever. They can read it as long as they are logged in.

As time goes on, you can increase the cost of credits to meet your needs, but outstanding credits are always honored, and purchased articles are always accessible in the user's "library".

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#98

Post by djhworld »

amelius wrote: post #77
jawns wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we desperately need is a real, useful micro-payments model where you can pay per-article. Former news editor here. I have spent a loooong time thinking about how to help my beloved news industry find a payment model that works. I've become convinced that a "cable subscription" model has more promise than a micropayments model. Here's what's wrong with a micropayments model. Each microtransaction is an addition…

That's the model used by Flattr [1]. They started years ago. Not sure why adoption is taking so long. > Flattr is a browser add-on that intelligently measures your interaction with content on the websites you visit, and then automatically distributes the right amount of funds to those sites you engage with the most. [1] https://flattr.com/

I have some tabs in my browser open that remain there for months (poor tab hygiene), how does it account for that?

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#99

Post by sumeno »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #96
sumeno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they pay after they already read the article? If it is on the honor system people just aren't going to pay.

If you pay a fixed access fee either way, then it's just the matter of you deciding who gets the money. Since the money is already "spent", you may as well vote on the articles you like.

Micropayments and a fixed access fee are completely different models in my opinion.

With micropayments you are making small payments for articles as you go and not paying a fixed fee, the problem with that is that you end up with click bait headlines that people will pay for and garbage for actual content.

Re: Google Unveils Tools to Increase Subscriptions for Publishers

#100

Post by magic_beans »

pavlov wrote: post #81
jjcm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the approach I've been working on: -Pay $~4/mo -Every upvote you give during that month (not just views, since I think views encourage clickbait) gives an equal slice of that $4 pie. -At the end of the month, a flat $1 goes to pay for server costs, then the rest is distributed evenly between every upvote. You can see a mini-demo here: http://syd.jjcm.org/soci/ The nice part of it is it ranks by quality while d…

That's basically what Medium is doing now, right? They offer $5/month subscriptions, and the money from subscribers is distributed among those writers who published members-only content based on the amount of "claps" (likes) each subscriber gave.

I'm surprised people pay for Medium. The quality of their brand seems to me a little diluted by the many half-baked, amateur articles published through their platform. It's basically thought catalog. Though I do of course enjoy the articles from reputable sources.
Post reply on HN