Drum (on a) Roll

Why He's #1

Checked in at Kevin Drum’s blog at Mother Jones this morning, and although he’s on vacation in London, he made the case for why I consider him a national treasure.


If this keeps up, Drum'll likely win the 2nd Annual Best Blogger Award—which would be two-in-a-row.  His Big 3 stories over the past 24 hours.

1.
First, back on the fifth, he posts about the new universal translator, Google Pixel Buds, that will allow world citizens to speak in real time in different languages and understand one another.  That’s big.  I suppose if I was a techie I might have already heard about this, but having someone tech-savvy sorting through fantastic-sounding news is, well, awesome.

2.
Second, also on the fifth, is an example of how effective Drum is at compressing news down to its basic elements, while at the same time coming up with the smart take.  New Report: Trump Planning to Decertify Iran Deal, makes the obvious case that Trump's decision is very dangerous, and that it does nothing but damage our side in multiple ways.  He ends his short post with a world weary shrug that acknowledges the moron’s thinking behind this move: “...undoing every last thing Obama accomplished.”

3.
Third, from this morning, is the kind of careful record-keeping that makes anyone who looks into these things understand the Leninist win-at-any-cost drift of the Republican party: After Four Years, IRS Finally Confirms There Was No Targeting of Tea Party Groups.  This is why journalism has traditionally been based on cautious fact-gethering, and not on organizing the spread of propaganda.  God Bless them, every last journalist getting this assignment right.

Monetizing Online Journalism

Another Ambitious New Idea

Websites pay their bills using a combination of:

* Advertising
* Paywall / subscription
* Self-promotion
* Fundraising

But what if there was a better way?

What if getting visitors to pay not dollars, but pennies, was the answer?

I know, it doesn't sound promising, but hear me out:

-- Many people see a penny on the street and leave it lay
-- Which suggests that, perhaps, many people paying puny amounts, and not a few paying a lot, is the way to go
-- Especially so, if the reader experience doesn't end with reading, but involves commenting, and writing as well
-- So, here goes with an imaginary site that posts short pieces by in-house bloggers, as well as a steady flow of outside submitters:

A. Three Most Popular Comments
-- Site hires the three most popular commenters every day--as judged by the site's readers; these writers not only receive a one-post commission, but with each commission, gradually accrues increased pay and length of hire

B. Best Comment
-- Every day, site hires a 'best' commenter--in the site's opinion--with a commission to write about anything

C. Voice of the People
-- Each week, site pays a random visitor a 50%-of-weekly-proceeds commission to write about anything

All this assumes website visitors paying ten cents each per article clicked.  If the site starts big, with enough promotion to draw in a hundred thousand visitors a day, that's $20,000 per day, assuming an average of 2 articles per visit, less about two thirds of that in commissions, so a budget of around $2.4 million a year ($6,600 x 360), which would pay for regular writers and overhead.

The initial registration process would involve the usual credit card information exchange.  And each click on a thumbnail article summation would say "cost: 10 cents".  The Voice of the People commision, backed by 50% of weekly revenue, would thus pay $93,800, perhaps enough of an incentive to toss in a few dimes every few days.  The four daily commissions, meanwhile, would pay an average of $800 each, about right for aspiring writers.

Big picture, if this system is used for not just online content, like journalism, but other media as well (imagine paying a few cents to watch an ad-free TV program) this would be a way to gradually end the tyranny of advertising, something that has thoroughly infiltrated our culture.

Nay-saying:
-- Is it legal to pay a "commission" at random, when this is only a few steps removed from gambling (an up-front fee and a chance to win)?  Answer: Perhaps, if the site is organized as a non-profit.  If it's legal, how would the process be verified?  A: In general, the internet can generate a random number, which can then be compared to a list of visitor 10-cent purchases, with everything done transparently, or through an independent authority.  If a "commission" is not legal, could legislation to that end pass?  One would think so.
-- Is one hundred thousand visitors a day too optimistic for a Voice of the People payout of $90,000 each week?  A: The amount would vary, and the higher the amount, the more likely the site's success; thus, the promotion at launch.
-- Would an average visitor decide to register, and then toss in an average two dimes?  A: Would-be writers might guarantee several thousand visitors a day.  And once registered, there would, of course, be no need to do so again.  Beyond that, only an expert in online traffic would have a clear idea as to likelihood.
-- Is 10 cents too much?  The end of the penny is near, since it costs more to mint than it's worth.  The nickel is next.  The dime seems safe.