undefined | Better HN

0 pointsska10y ago0 comments

You would need cost per article to be about (cost of paper)/(typical number of articles someone needs to buy the paper) to maintain revenue.

So this should be a lot higher than (cost of paper)/(number of articles)

Not sure that 40c is right, mind you, just that you can't really compare it to the total number of articles, if most people don't read most of them.

0 comments

alexandernl10y ago

Blendle's founder here. Pricing is something that we're going to experiment with. Nobody knows what the willingness to pay for journalism, yet. So we're going to figure that out.

I think it'll always be a mix between micropayments and subscriptions: micropayments if you only read a little, subscriptions if you read a lot from a specific title.

JacobJans10y ago

I don't think people should pay for journalism. They should pay for journalists.

What do I mean?

The benefits that we get from journalism are maximized if we have expert journalists – people who dedicate their lives to being good journalists.

Good journalists need stability. If they depend on the readership rates for individual articles, they are disencentivized to take the kinds of risks that a stable institution can afford to give them.

I don't know Blendle's long term plans in terms of supporting quality journalism – but the micropayment model is at odds with giving stability to individual journalists.

Hopefully this is something your are thinking about. How can we best support journalists – and not just individual peices of journalism?

maxwelljoslyn10y ago

(not the person you replied to)

I think you're right. I can't believe I never thought of like that before.

1 more reply

skaOP10y ago

I wish you luck, this is a hard nut to crack.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse