I think a lot of the most valuable content is content produced by people not seeking to profit from it.
I often say this about movies but it's also true of a lot of online articles: If the "content creators" can't make a profit because I won't pay for the "content" I really don't care, in fact it's probably better for me and for society if there's less "content".
"content creators" - mostly companies that don't care at all about the subjects they have people write about, or about their audience
"content" - pretty much just junk food for your brain
Yup
Someone put head said they had something like $100 off 60k views. That's about .1p per view.
I'd like to visit a page and before it loads, it would tell me the price. If that's 1/10p then I'd probably just allow it automatically. If it's 1p then I'd probably manually approve it. If it's 10p I might think "nah". I'd rather pay directly than pay through increased prices at shops that advertise. Same principle with videos on youtube - at least those one that someone actually makes.
However if I choose to pay - whether that's 0.1p to read a blog post, or £15 a month for Spotify, I expect no adverts or begging or product placement of any kind. Amazon prime gives videos, and when I watch on A smart TV or on laptop it's fine. On the old fire tv box we have it prepended clips with adverts for other shows. That's not on.
Currnently I pay for a couple of sites, but it's a heavyweight way to crack a nut.
Some sites have this sort of model, but want far more per page than they get from adverts, and then there's a massive hassle of different accounts and managing payments. I might read a blog with a donate button, however it's u likely I've judged the page to be worth more than a penny or two, and the donate options tend to start at $1.
This, and it would also need to be 100% frictionless.
I'm giving money to The Guardian to support their good journalism, but I still get the nag popups to give them money because I'm not signed in (and I'm certainly not going to enable persistent cookies for the site and then sign in across all the devices I use).
I want to pose a question for the community.
60 years ago you paid for news paper. It was direct. Plus they had ads. Business model was clear.
Here my question,
Would everyone be ok with adblocker to have an option for you to pay the owners of the websites you visit?
Instead of them replying on ads, you just pay a fee for each visit. Then there a weekly payment sent to publishers.
I’m not speaking of the likeliness, or the technical issues.
Just the concept.
Interested in hearing you responses.
Ps I’m not a publisher or in ads.