6 ms·
Well, advertising is usually billed to advertisers as a cost-per-thousand (really, cost-per-mil, or CPM) for impressions. For a small local news site, they'd b
by creinhardt 6y ago
Well, advertising is usually billed to advertisers as a cost-per-thousand (really, cost-per-mil, or CPM) for impressions. For a small local news site, they'd be super happy to get a $10 CPM on a local online ad. So let's just say for fun that we'd get the same rate for the hypothetical 'Spotify for news' service. Say a locally focused article about the latest city council meeting gets 20,000 views. At a $10 CPM that only generates $200 (or $0.01 per person). Does that seem like enough revenue to cover the time it took the reporter to attend the meeting, write up the story, have it proofread/edited, and then posted online and printed and still make a profit? Probably not!
The sad part is that the $.01 per person rate is way, way higher than what Spotify apparently pays out (around $0.006 to $0.0084 from some Googling).
This starts to look better if you just go to something like $0.25 per read, but at that rate you're likely charging much more than it would cost to buy a print copy, or a per-day subscription rate, so i'm not sure the economics would work out there either.
- wolco2 6y agoWhen the full paper costs .50-2.00, .25 is too much per article unless you get the entire paper.
- creinhardt 6y agoYeah, definitely! I think it'd be a tricky thing to balance an appropriate rate for most publishers. I suppose you'd start by figuring out how many articles per-day the average reader lays eyes on. You'd also start to have to forecast revenue that's correlated directly to readership, which would probably lead to fewer articles about city council, and more listicles or salacious coverage.