OT: "Micro" subscriptions?

[smontanaro]

I'm sure everyone here has encountered the "you've used 1 of your 5 free articles this month" message when following a link from their favorite news reader (e.g., Google News) or search engine (Bing, anyone?). I subscribe to the NY Times, but find interesting articles on a bunch of other news sites.

I'm limited in how many subscriptions I am willing to pay for in a couple ways:

• I am not independently wealthy
• Even if money was of little or no object, I have limited available time

I suspect the same is true for most people.

It seems like every newspaper or magazine is trying to figure out how to make subscription-based revenue streams work (advertising clearly doesn't seem to work). Given the above limits, it seems to me that a couple different "blended" subscription models might work:

• "Micro" subscriptions might raise the number of articles per month from some single-digit value to something more like 20/month, but cost less than the full unlimited subscription price.
• "Aggregate" subscriptions might allow the subscriber to read some total number of articles per month from a collection of subscription-based sites for a fixed monthly price. Just to put some numbers on this, I might pay $25/month for 100 articles from a group of publishers (e.g., NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic, Sports Illustrated). The monthly revenue paid to the publishers would be proportional to the number of articles I read from each.

Is anyone aware that either of these non-traditional subscription models already exists?

[mhespenheide]

Well, if you want to game the system, you can either [1] browse in incognito mode or [2] clear the cookies from your browser's cache. That'll reset the counter for most websites.

[rnhood]

I pay $25/mo for a subscription to the WSJ, and love it. I have no desire to read other sources. I will argue that overall, it's the best - at least from a journalistic standpoint. The main articles are generally well researched and written, without the typical political slants so many other media outlets have. There is some slant in the opinion section, but I mostly read the main section. Really excellent.

[FlashUNC]

Won't work.

[cua90]

Originally Posted by rnhood

I pay $25/mo for a subscription to the WSJ, and love it. I have no desire to read other sources. I will argue that overall, it's the best - at least from a journalistic standpoint. The main articles are generally well researched and written, without the typical political slants so many other media outlets have. There is some slant in the opinion section, but I mostly read the main section. Really excellent.

+1. Worth every penny if you are interested in current events. Also excellent extra sections on investing, retirement, taxes, etc. WSJ subscriber for 25+ years.

[saab2000]

I’m going to subscribe to the NYT soon. Their pricing appears to be a bargain in real terms. There are plenty of ways to get real news and information for free, but for full access it’s going to cost. Otherwise it’s paid for solely by advertising and that can and will lead to a degradation of reporting.

I have no heartburn with the WSJ but am going to start my online paying subscriptions with the NYT.

[Rpoole8537]

My wife and I have a subscription to the Times, however, not sure if we get the entire paper, but we get enough, given our time. Years ago, I bought a Fire from Amazon, and got a limited subscription to the Post. The Fire is awful, but I keep it just to have access to the Post. I thought they would have limited me to a timeframe on the Post, but it keeps coming!

[GonaSovereign]

I receive some local and national papers (early riser and coffee; mornings before sunrise is my time). I also subscribe to The Economist. The Economist is on point and well balanced. Annoyingly, they want subscribers to buy a separate digital plan...this will eventually force me to nix it or move to digital only. Maybe that’s better for the planet.

[jwalther]

Amazon Plus membership gives you WaPo online. Apple News+ is the deal of the century. https://www.apple.com/apple-news/

[BobbyJones]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Won't work.

Yes. And it will never work for music either.

Seriously, it's a good idea and already takes place on a commercial level, ie News Services. On a retail level, it may take more industry consolidation and desperation, or maybe just an innovator with deep pockets to give it a shot.

[likebikes]

the only subscription i have is new york times, full online access, $4/mo

[Peter P.]

I subscribe to the paper edition of my local paper. That subscription also gives me on-line access.

With the internet, you could be reading a thread, such as on this forum, where someone references a newspaper whether it be the NY Times or any other newspaper. Having to subscribe to EVERY newspaper when I want to read just a single article would be financially destructive.

I could see the future where smontanaro suggests microsubscriptions: You register on the newspaper's site, and whenever you view a single article you pay a small fee, perhaps a penny, nickel, dime, etc. . Without the registration you might only be able to view headlines or synopses.

Could be the future, and it would seem reasonable to keep newspapers alive. They are essential to society.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by BobbyJones

Yes. And it will never work for music either.

Seriously, it's a good idea and already takes place on a commercial level, ie News Services. On a retail level, it may take more industry consolidation and desperation, or maybe just an innovator with deep pockets to give it a shot.

Because news is music. Genius!

Here's why is a stupid idea: The horse left the barn a long time ago when news sites trained their readers to expect things on the web for free. Once that behavior was ingrained in consumers, there was no going back. Even if there's a nominal uptick in subscribers through some sort of partial subscriber model, the overwhelming consumer behavior today is to not pay for news, even though news (and good news) costs very real money to produce. And this sets aside the notion that consumers -- at least for the last 150 or so years -- were ever the main revenue source for media companies to begin with. It was print ads, classifieds, and the subscriptions threw some cash on the pile. All three have cratered either through the industry's collective stupidity, or technological evolution.

Now, I'll concede the proposal from the OP may some merit for the 4-5 tier 1 national publications that set the country's news agenda everyday -- though I'm of the mind if such a plan was feasible the New York Times Co would have implemented something similar by now instead of their current subscription and semi-gated content model -- but the proposed approach does jack-all for the local paper that's been hemorraghing subscribers and readers for years now, and is the place that's probably more important to anyone personally for what's happening that affects their day to day lives. But consolidation you say! Surely that'll cure that problem...

It hasn't. Gannett, Cox, Hearst, Knight Ridder, Tribune et al have been on a consolidation trend for years now. Either buying each other, smaller media companies or shuttering unprofitable local papers. Slashing costs and doing whatever they can to get eyeballs on the product, hasn't worked. Cox currently splits back off production operations for something like 10 newspapers and websites from a single operational hub. Still bleeding money and readers.

Partial subscriptions are no different than pay per click ad buys, and look where that's got the industry today.

But sure, iTunes amirite???

[HenryA]

Used to do Flipbook a bit. It appears applenews is the nearest thing to micro subscriptions. I suspect it will work over time.

I have often thought that a subscription service that allowed access to many outlets and charged each visit to your account, then distributed that money would be a great thing. Kinda like a radio station playing music for pay. Pandora maybe?

Don’t know about all the above, but I do subscribe to the WSJ which is expensive and priced according to its merit. IMO.

What I can’t figure is how long the click model will last. Who wants to read a page with a bunch of stupid click bait scattered all over it?

[Blue Jays]

http://www.BugMeNot.com can be of assistance here.