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?
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?
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.
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 to a couple
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?
Edit: it’s a mix of revenue