I feel like I keep repeating myself, but IMO the real problem here is a lack of a viable micro-transaction infrastructure. Donations work for small outfits, but not for the kind of organization that can afford to put a journalist on a story for months on end. The last viable model was that each household would subscribe to one or two newspapers, and that's mostly what they read. Now, I need to be able to subscribe to 10-20 publications at the same total cost, and that list of subscriptions must adapt to my changing reading habits. The differences between paying for content and consumption of content are too large, and current efforts to subsidize the gap with ads are falling short. Until we can change the funding model, the solution will be to make cheaper news.
I don't see why "micro-transactions" are necessary when simply paying a decent outfit $2 or $3 a month would do the job. NSFWCorp had it figured out: you pay them $3 a month and you get 5 "unlocks" to share with others for 48 hours. You want access to the archives or something else? You pay $3 and you have access for a month. I think NSFWCorp had 2 problems: 1) They were too snarky by half. They weren't so much interested in journalism as they were in pissing on people they didn't like. 2) They didn't have enough cash to get over the hump. If they had 24 months of reserves, rather than 2, they'd probably have figured it out by now.
Because NSFWCorp couldn't afford for you to pay in $2 increments. Due to transaction fees, they have to get larger upfront commitments. Since these upfront costs are large, they force the reader to choose just a couple of outlets to pay, rather than spread it out in a way that resembles their reading habits.
I've mentioned De Correspondent before, haven't I? Finally found a proper explanation in English, from back when they Kickstarted it. They managed to get 15k users to pay the 60 euro fee for a year of excellent investigative journalism. That's how they could get their journalists to really explore and find depth in an online world of superficiality. They get it, you know. That's why I'm more than happy to pay for it.
My fundamental problem with the micro-transfer platform is that it would turn every publication into HuffPo in about a day. The organization needs money to support its endeavors. Is that West Africa bureau a net loss? Yeah probably. But when ebola hits the fan, the other alternative is to ignore it. If we're only rewarding for specific stories, we can 't be mad when that's all we get. I pay the Times their $12.95/mo or whatever, and I don't think I've clicked on the style section even once. But all the people that do are keeping the lights on for the useless little articles about rhino poaching and bird migration that make that publication worth reading.
But there are not enough people doing it. I don't read 1-2 outfits, it doesn't make sense that my subscription should be limited to 1-2 outfits, but because I can't pay in small increments, it is. NYT is asking me to pay upfront for a value to them alone that I don't get from them alone. Why should I pay NYT over three other outlets that I read an equal amount? I can't afford to pay all 4.But all the people that do are keeping the lights on for the useless little articles about rhino poaching and bird migration that make that publication worth reading.
Exactly this. Ryan Holiday makes point that newsboys screaming headlines on the town square led directly to the rise of yellow journalism, while the NYT's subscription model led directly to its demise. When your "journalism" is being driven entirely by CPM, you're doomed to hunt sensationalism. Oh, wait. Excuse me: "Does pay-per-click advertising directly lead to sensationalist journalism?"