I'd be happy with a Spotify model for news if instead of paying out to broad publications, it paid out to authors. There are some freelance journalists whose names I can recognize when they pop-up occasionally in Vice, CBC, etc. Although Spotify is notoriously misery towards independent artists and the whole thing would probably collapse under clickbait trash.
Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
this exists: https://www.twitch.tv/turbo
Do the streamers get 50% of that $12 like they would a subscription?
"We built Turbo with this question in mind, and streamers continue to earn revenue from ads that Turbo subscribers miss. For streamers – revenue you receive from Turbo subscribers who watch your channel is reflected in your “Ads” revenue estimate in your payout analytics." Source: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-turbo-guide?language...
Disclosure: I work here, but I'm not close enough to the Turbo folks to do anything but quote public materials.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#13The legalization of pharmaceutical advertisement in 1997 was the start of the corruption of our news. If you pay attention to virtually any of the news orgs, such as CNN, or MSNBC, etc, you'll see pharma ads and / or sponsorship logos during the broadcast. In many cases, the pharma company account for 70% or more of their advertising revenue. They can effectively crush any story they don't want making the mainstream, while also pushing whatever health narrative they desire to drive profits. It's truly disgusting.
I've pretty much started watching Glen Greenwald's online newscasts, he is one of the few remaining true investigative journalists out there.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#14The 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…
It takes time and resources, which cost money. Ads can't pay for it well enough. The article rightly points out that subscriptions cost way too much relative to the number of sources people consume. Everyone left and right screeches about government influence if taxes are used to pay for it. What's left, wealthy patronage paying for it? People working for free (e.g. OSINT twitter)?
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#15> the focus seems to be on only the publications from traditional publishers, like these... All of these are entertainment publications. I'm really not too concerned with how it's paid for, whether its ads, subscription fees, or a Youtuber doing it for free. The news I worry about is the eat-your-vegetables sort that is valuable for society, but few people actively seek out. Public funding doesn't work well because i…
So what are the eat-your-vegetables sorts of news
because I can't think of a time that news news has been relevant to my life -- "staying on top of current events" has only ever benefited me making small talk at parties. The stuff that matters like local politics, community events and organizing rarely happens in the newspaper. Maybe it used to before my time but it doesn't seem to anymore. Following my states bill tracking platform, local orgs, my local chapter of the ACLU, and the social media of local politicians and government agencies like the planning commission, and (begrudgingly) Facebook events actually surface real life actionable stuff. For capital G grass roots stuff Tiktok has been surprisingly good since they feed you geographically local content. Have been to a few protests that organized on TT.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#16The legalization of pharmaceutical advertisement in 1997 was the start of the corruption of our news. If you pay attention to virtually any of the news orgs, such as CNN, or MSNBC, etc, you'll see pharma ads and / or sponsorship logos during the broadcast. In many cases, the pharma company account for 70% or more of their advertising revenue. They can effectively crush any story they don't want making the mainstream,…
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.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#17Isn't https://go.readly.com/ the Spotify for news? Many magazines and newspapers are available.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#18Isn't https://go.readly.com/ the Spotify for news? Many magazines and newspapers are available.
I skimmed the "Top Titles"[1], and most of the publication aren't exactly what comes to my mind when I think of "hard hitting journalism".
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#19This sells me further on the model, actually. I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel . So I end up paying nothing at all.
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 target demographic.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#20Isn't https://go.readly.com/ the Spotify for news? Many magazines and newspapers are available.
As the article explains at great length, the idea is doomed because its promoters assume news = old media like magazines and newspapers, which is simply not the case anymore.