And how will I know if an article was worth paying for until I've already read it? This might work with a site I frequent and have grown to trust but most of the views on most articles aren't regulars of the publication itself but probably got there because it was shared or came up as a search result
Besides simply being unwilling to pay, I think most people just don't want to spend the mental effort evaluating the potential value of an article they haven't read yet. When the question arises, "is this article worth $1?" it's much easier to just click away and read something else. We are spoiled by a wealth of free information, even if it's mostly low quality.
The thing is -- and I realize the flaws in this argument before I even make it -- I would want to pay 5 cents for every article not to access it, but after I have read it. And it would have to be my decision: if I think it was a high quality article, well researched and reasoned about, perfect. If it turns out to be garbage though? I wouldn't want to pay.
I would totally pay 5 cents just to see if an article is good. I think the price point will vary wildly from person to person. For me, 50 cents is probably where I start getting price sensitive. I would pay 50 cents for a long form article from a publisher known for high quality, and 5 cents for your average news article.
Because what if you pay 0.5$ for an article, and then you find out it's not what you expected/badly written/...
You basically are not happy and less likely to do it again.
If you put payment to the end, then people are less willing to pay, because they already consumed the article. You can't take the information out of the head again if he's not willing to pay.
I agree. I see part of the value in a newspaper [irrespective of material form] is as an aggregate. It filters against hard and soft criteria and that's what is worth paying for [for some people]. The pay-per-article model might work if it can meet that function and offers better value than a 'newspaper subscription' and offers better value than the free internet to some market segment.
The question is not 'Are there profits to be had when I can charge a penny every time someone reads an article on the internet?'. The hard question is 'How do I show people it is worth paying me a penny to read an article on the internet?'
They pay for member reading time. In other words, when a paying member reads your piece, a part of their $5 goes to you based on the number of minutes they read. Outside views give nothing. So even if your article goes viral on HN or somewhere else, if the readers aren’t subscribers you make nothing. (It ends up being something like 1-3¢/min)
> 1. A friction free way to pay what I want AFTER I've read an article (I assume a base level fee to read it in the first place) so that I can reward an excellent article. I want to know that that money goes to those who made that article not all the other people at the "publication".
Sounds like a great way to lose more publications.
I wonder how well it would work if it cost $1 to read an article, but there was an easy way to say "this was a bad article and I want my $1 back" some relatively large fraction of the time. I know that if I had already paid $1 for an article, then read and enjoyed it, I would not be inclined to want my $1 back. However, if I'm being asked to pay $1 just based on the headline, and then the article is clickbait and I have no recourse, I'm probably never going to pay $1 for another article from the same source.
Also, in that system, "90% of readers were satisfied enough to let the author keep their dollar" would be a pretty strong signal of quality (especially so if the platform takes more than a 10% cut: this is one of the rare cases where a higher cut to the middleman might actually result in a better product).
The problem publications will have is attractive new subscribers. Why would I pay money? Maybe I would really enjoy their quality, maybe not. In the past I'd find out because someone would leave a copy of the newpaper in the lobby and I'd read it. Now someone says this is great, but I've ready many articles somebody said was great that were not (some some seemed great until it was pointed out latter all the research was cleverly made up - they fooled me)
I think you're right about micropayments. I think most everyone's thoughts are in hindsight, using existing reading patterns to determine value. However, as soon as you actually have to pay to read an article - reading habits change.
It's like free food. A lot of people will eat anything when it's free, but that doesn't mean they will actually buy it.
reply