My starting point is research by Forrester (and others) that 80% of Internet readers want advertising supported (free) journalism, and that 20% will pay directly for Internet journalism. I assume that the 20% includes people who will pay for utility.

The essence of WoW’s approach is that people have the option to pay on an article-by-article basis. If something is particularly interesting (has high utility), readers who are “usually in the 80%” can purchase that article (or song, photo, game, video).

WoW’s approach provides benefits for both the 80% who want advertising supported content, and the 20% who want direct pay content. This is consistent with our business proposition for publishers: “we will buy your content without advertising; you set the price”.

Christoph, the answer to your question is that I agree with Chuck, some people will pay for utility. The benefit of WoW’s approach is that publishers earn revenue from people who are willing to pay directly, AND from people who want advertising supported journalism. This advertising is hyper-local advertising that earns much higher CPM, than current Internet advertising.

do you think readers will pay?

The major difference is the mix of content and advertising. Two readers viewing the same article, at the same time, will probably see different advertisements.

WoW separates content production from advertising sales. Unlike Google, we work with publishers. Our business proposition for publishers is “we will buy your content without advertising; you set the price”. Publishers determine the value of their content; and set the price accordingly.

If the revenue that WoW earns from advertising exceeds the price set by the publisher, then the reader perceives the article to be “free”. If the price set by the publisher exceeds the advertising revenue, then the reader pays the difference.

“The app uses dynamic menus that offer readers the opportunity to subscribe to publication, or publication and section (business, sports, fashion, etc), or publication/writer. All of the “subscriptions” are delivered to the app, rather than a user navigating to web pages for different publishers.”

sounds like Google Reader? What makes it different?

I’m working on an application that permits readers to “subscribe” to digital content. The app uses dynamic menus that offer readers the opportunity to subscribe to publication, or publication and section (business, sports, fashion, etc), or publication/writer. All of the “subscriptions” are delivered to the app, rather than a user navigating to web pages for different publishers.

Our business proposition for publishers is “we will buy your content without advertising; you set the price”.

We will sell hyper-local advertising and match it with digital content. If advertising revenue exceeds the price specified by the publisher, the reader perceives the content to be free. If not, the reader pays the difference.

The name of the app is “Without Or With (WoW)”.

I usually read the Times’ mobile version so I hadn’t seen this link. Thanks for sharing it.

Another way of optimizing a consumer’s time is by giving them an easy way to get the info on the topics they want.

For example, let’s say you are interested in business, but not all business, just Rockwell Collins business.

A consumer could bookmark just the “page” that gives all “Rockwell Collins” tagged posts. For example, for our business blog here’s the relevant link: http://www.easterniowabusiness.com/tag/rockwell-collins/

Or they could also bookmark the search results page: http://www.easterniowabusiness.com/?s=Rockwell+Collins

Pretty optimized, except those are way too many steps for a consumer to get figured out where a narrow topic can be found.

Somehow, at some point we’ll have to make that a bit easier for the casual consumer.

Any ideas?

The “interested in” and “looking for” in your comment correspond to the “passive reception” and “active search” in my comment.

For passive reception, readers rely upon editors to make choices (listeners rely upon DJs, viewers rely upon channel programmers).

A good example of optimizing a reader’s limited time is the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html) It contains several headlines plus abstracts, followed by “Jump To” that is organized by topic. A regular reader can choose edited articles from a “menu” that s/he is interested in.