a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk

I earnestly hope that you are right. I would love to see what the age demographics are for those that do subscribe. Personally speaking, if I could have an account that I could dump $ into, and then I could permission certain sites to draw from it, and have a history of my activity and spending, I would be a much better internet denizen.





user-inactivated  ·  3017 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You seem to be describing something like flattr. I hope it gets more widespread!

kleinbl00  ·  3019 days ago  ·  link  ·  

it actually looks kind of okay.

    The Times can count about the same number of paying daily readers today as it could in 1995.

    In those pre-digital days, the Times’ daily circulation stood at 1.5 million. Today, it counts 625,000 daily print payers (home delivery and single copy) and those 1 million digital payers. That’s a little over 1.6 million. That’s another mind-boggling equivalency. With all that has changed, in the news business particularly, roughly the same number of people pay for The New York Times. One takeaway: Even at the peak of financial success — and the ’90s were good for the industry — the Times still relied on only a tiny percentage of Americans. At one point, a million and a half paying readers meant sustaining prosperity. Now, it seems like a shaky lifeline. There’s truth and there’s perception, and a lot to think about.