So I get ads are terrible, obviously. I run ad-blockers all the time. But people also get angry at paywalls. So that leaves me wondering, if not through ads or subscriptions, how is a news publisher supposed to sustain itself?
Imo, the problem would be easier with more frictionless payment methods.
But the real issue is that fewer and fewer people are reading at all, or have the attention span for a quality newspaper article. So you are getting fucked at both ends - no one is paying for the product, and they arent using the product anymore anyway. I certainly know my personal consumption of long form writing has dropped off over the last decade.
QueenMidna@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Honestly if I had a “tap to pay” concept for articles or news, but only AFTER I’ve read the article, I’d do it more.
I’m not going to sign up for you substack. I don’t want a subscription. I’ll give money if that I consumed was interesting or relevant to me.
AA5B@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Huh, I came here to say the opposite. If people were similar to me, a weak paywall is exactly right
I hate the idea of paying per article: I don’t know the value at the time nor do I know whether they’re trustworthy. If something posted here isn’t readable without pay, I’m not reading it.
However I do recognize news sources the I find useful, that are high quality, that are likely to have more well done news, and i do subscribe
On the other hand I also pay a news aggregator and have no idea how their sources are paid. Do they get a cut per article I read? Is it effectively advertising where they offer teaser articles and hope to sell me a subscription?