Journalists online often make their money from advertising. And there have been a number of stories over the years about the damage of ad blocking. Seldom (never?) do you see the exact amount they make per view or per impression or however you want to measure how much money they make from me looking at their articles.
I read a bit of stuff from Ars Technica, and a rough count for the past month is at least looking at (which is admittedly different than reading) about 70 different URLs (some might be little more than photo galleries, so they aren’t all necessarily articles). They have two subscription options that would apparently supplant any money they would otherwise make off my visits if I saw their ads:
- $50 per year, which is about $4.17 per month.
- $5 per month.
Assuming the past month is my average viewing of their site, it would work out to between $0.0595 and $0.071 per URL, if I subscribed. The problem is that I don’t believe they make anything like ¢5 or ¢7 per view from advertising. If that were the model, that I actually paid them a nickel per URL, I would probably read less, at least until I got a handle on how much it was costing.
Loyalty is also a hard argument to make on the web, when I find my reading habits shift over time. If I have to go to each content site and manage subscriptions, figure out whether I want to give $5 to Ars Technica or $5 to some other site, that’s time I’d rather spend doing something else. Anything else.
But if they told me they make $0.007 per view (my completely blind guess), I might gladly pay $0.01 per URL (on average), especially if it were a cross-site system, and I doubt I read more than 100 articles per day. That is the micropayment model.
In other words, if sites like Ars Technica or Business Insider want to shift the model, they should get together and try to build the system that lets that happen. Because right now there’s a lot of difference to me between $0.49/month (the $0.007 ad rate), $0.71/month (if I paid a cent per article), and $5.00/month (if I paid their subscription rate).
Now, I’m sure their argument is that not everybody who reads will subscribe, so the $5 is designed to subsidize the freeloaders and still be low enough that people with modest incomes can afford it. The counter to that is that there are many articles I do not read from them. I would prefer to pay for the ones I actually read, to encourage the journalism I care about.
It’s the difference between paying for access to all the music from some record label and paying for specific albums by specific artists.
On the other hand, I do have my Ars whitelisted in my ad blocker. Edit 20150910: I have removed the whitelisting, as Ars Technica uses moving ads and Adobe Flash ads.