No, no, no! Micropayments are not the way.

We already know the way. It's the cable/streaming model.

You pay for a single monthly subscription and get access to substantially all of the major news content.

What would need to happen for this to be possible? Cooperation between most of the major news outlets. Not cooperation in an anti-competitive sense, but willingness to participate in this sort of business model.

I'm a former news editor and left the industry because the business side couldn't figure out a viable business model.

I realize and feel deeply the loss we experience (especially at the local and state level) when quality journalism dies out, and I would love for the industry to recover.

But they're not going to do it unless they recognize that single-site subscriptions (or micropayment transactions) aren't going to cut it.

Copying the cable model would favor big media companies over smaller, more local players.

A music-streaming style option, where the user's monthly payment is distributed in proportion to the articles they read, might be better. (Although not without it's own issues)

If you thought clickbait headlines were annoying when people were competing for ad impressions, just wait until they’re competing for micropayments.

I think this is even harder to make work than straightforward micropayments with crypto or paypal or similar.

Is it the same subscription fee no matter what publications I read or how many articles? (If it varies directly based on what I'm reading then I think it is just micropayments.)

Publications with healthy subscription revenue like WSJ or the Economist are not going to be interested in participating unless they get paid a lot of money and/or can be assured it somehow will not cannibalize their direct sales.

Who owns the customer relationship? Publishers have been burned pretty much 100% of the time they cede that direct relationship to someone else.

Also, it's been tried: see Scroll, Apple News, Flattr, Coil, Brave BAT...

Apple news is around with that model. Not sure how successful they are though.

+1. I come online to discover new things because there's less friction online than anywhere else. What's more, digging through a mountain of content to find something that resonates with you is a form of work in its own right.

Micropayments are friction, and if you put friction on top of the work of discovery, I will do something else with my time.

What if you're not a major news outlet?

Also, how's the deal between the distributor and the news outlets? Do you get paid according to views or is it a flat fee?

We also have PBS as a model.

Centralised billing effectively makes serious journalism impossible. Omnibus subscription services will ruthlessly cut anything that affects the bottom line, and effective journalism is necessarily unpopular.

Oh, but don't you know? If our newspaper is on the same subscription as another newspaper which we don't like, then that means we agree with them in all their radical and dangerous opinions? No, no, no, people want to read only one newspaper, which tells them what to think and how to feel on every subject matter.

That's why streaming services also failed. Imagine Beatles and gangster rap and heavy metal being on the same music platform? Fans would never accept that!