Blendle was an attempt at Spotify for news, and is several years old.
It didn't really work out in the end, the low fee shared with publishers was not sustainable.
Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
41–50 of 64 posts
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#42News != opinions. I am willing to pay a fair price for real, objective news about things that matter. Factual reporting.
Of course, there is no such thing as objective news but at least it is vision to strive for.
But the news you can pay for only spends a tiny fraction on this. Instead you get tons of opinions, speculation amd reports about the political game. Basically gossip dressed up as news. And other pieces about celebrities and influencers and people that actually don't matter that much to make the world work. It is engaging but it is not especially valuable to me, as a consumer. I can do without it.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#43The real problem is presuming the profit model for news is a good idea. It's going to always tend towards quick-turn around, low-effort sensationalism because that's the most profitable configuration. Speculation, accusation, defamation, and conspiracies will always get more eyeballs then careful balanced well researched reporting. Lying about something now is cheaper and more profitable than sending a reporter out a…
> There has to be a model where such manipulative lying doesn't pay off.
The more I think about this problem, the less I feel like there's a solution. Ultimately, any news outlet is going to be responsible for whoever is funding it.
You can get the Bezos/Soon-Shiong/etc. model, in which the newspaper is treated as a billionaire's philanthropic project, which is problematic in that you've got one person responsible, and if he's not happy he can stop funding it.
You can do a broader, crowdsourced/fundraised philanthropy model, but if the newspaper doesn't make content that people like, they're not going to donate. You're almost certainly going to end up with a partisan paper, because you either need donors from the left or donors from the right.
You can do the government-funded model, but of course everyone ought to be wary of the government controlling the funding of the news.
So... what does that leave? I don't ask that rhetorically - it's something that I've thought a lot about and failed to come to any kind of a useful answer on. The best thing I can come up with is a billionaire (or group of them) endowing a newspaper with a trust that they can't take back and which doesn't allow them to exert control. But then you've still gotta have someone hiring the staff and running the place - who picks those people?
I really don't know - it feels like a truly intractable problem. I'm honestly glad for the rise of the Substack/newsletter model - at least there, I know exactly who's responsible for the content and what their biases are. Unfortunately, that's better for political commentary and the like - it's just not a feasible model for breaking actual news.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#44No need for bundling really. I subscribe to a major American news source for $2/month. Their algorithm figured out that's what i'm willing to pay and got it right. I assume that for most big publishers this could work (possibly through some process of price discovery and segmentation to capture those willing to pay more). I also subscribe to a patreon for $3/momth - for small publishers this obviously works too (agai…
$2 / month sounds like a bargain. Where I live it is much more expensive.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#45It's like there isn't a bunch of people out there that might like the 'old fashioned' style of media. We're all kids now?
Silly article really, of course online has more reach, an analogy here is that video games should all be made a streaming service, because who buys full games up-front any more...
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other model do you propose? Government funded news? No news at all? Volunteer news?
Think about how higher education and journals work... There's lots of criticism of them but if you get, say, a masters in chemistry from let's say Columbia, you aren't going to be learning about alchemy and orgones. We seem to be able to reasonably pull that off as a society. So I guess look at systems with relatively low bullshit information density and try to follow their lead somehow. We might have to admit that d…
Isn't "getting general society to responding in kind" essentially figuring out "who's going to pay for it"?
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about how higher education and journals work... There's lots of criticism of them but if you get, say, a masters in chemistry from let's say Columbia, you aren't going to be learning about alchemy and orgones. We seem to be able to reasonably pull that off as a society. So I guess look at systems with relatively low bullshit information density and try to follow their lead somehow. We might have to admit that d…
Isn't "getting general society to responding in kind" essentially figuring out "who's going to pay for it"?
Indirectly! Yes. That's the point.
We don't ask about who will pay for the new police helicopter or military jet or who will pay for a bank bailout or corporate subsidy.
But if it's in the public interest everyone puts on their reading glasses and pulls out their calculator and red pens.
This is a function of priorities and we need to make sure they're being intentionally set and then the money will flow accordingly.
This should be in the same priority class as food inspection, water sanitation and road repair. That's how important honest well funded news is to a functional democracy. We don't say, complain that the city fixing potholes interferes with the market of private road repair companies.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unconvinced. There are many developed countries that don't allow pharmaceutical advertisements. If your theory was true, we'd expect stories that pharma companies want suppressed to show up there but not in the US. Can you provide examples of this? The best I could come up with is "support for public healthcare", but support for public healthcare wasn't something that got torpedoed starting in 1997.
> The best I could come up with is "support for public healthcare" ... Wouldn't that be more than enough? They can easily spend tens of billions on advertising, in order to make hundreds of billions. You'd expect them to; if they're allowed.
>... Wouldn't that be more than enough?
Did you stop reading right there and not the follow up sentence? The best example I could come up with doesn't past muster.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
TFA's point is that the model is horrible for creators: a revenue sharing model is only viable as long as the number of creators being shared is comparatively small. $5, $10, $20 from a few hundred or thousand viewers is a decent haul when compared to a few fractional pennies per view. It makes sense that creators focus their efforts on cultivating personal relationships with a small, but loyal base. You're not their…
People say they will pay for news. The translation is that will be dragged kicking and screaming into paying $100 per year for all they can eat news rather than the thousands it would actually cost.
Exactly. People are willing to pay for news if it’s sensibly priced. It’s not a charity. If it really costs thousands, then the model is broken and they should all be out of a job.
But let’s be honest, it doesn’t cost thousands.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "getting general society to responding in kind" essentially figuring out "who's going to pay for it"?
Indirectly! Yes. That's the point. We don't ask about who will pay for the new police helicopter or military jet or who will pay for a bank bailout or corporate subsidy. But if it's in the public interest everyone puts on their reading glasses and pulls out their calculator and red pens. This is a function of priorities and we need to make sure they're being intentionally set and then the money will flow accordingly.…
So you are basically advocating for government funding it seems, is that correct?
Do you have any concerns about that?