Give away the news and sell the analysis? Thus, read for free the bare bones news about the Kiwi deaths in Afghanistan, pay to read the in-depth story and analysis by xyz.
Yeah, this is the only way it can work, because a hundred sites will carry the same news story. It's the analysis by writers you like and trust you (presumably) pay for.
Presentation is important. It's like, The AV Club's Newswire features pop culture news you could find on any number of sites, but it's Sean O'Neal's snarky tone that makes me come back to read it everyday. I'd pay for that.
Have you heard of MATTER, Russell? I contributed to the Kickstarter. In their words:
MATTER will focus on doing one thing, and doing it exceptionally well. Every week, we will publish a single piece of top-tier long-form journalism about big issues in technology and science. That means no cheap reviews, no snarky opinion pieces, no top ten lists. Just one unmissable story.
They are aiming to charge 99c per story – see here for more info.
Woah, hold up. You know how you could avoid playing in 3 degrees? Play games in the afternoon. Oh, Sky won’t let you? Then why the hell aren’t they paying for the goddamn stadium, rather than ratepayers.
Good point. And since it's the NZRU who get all that money from Sky, why don't the they pay for it?
BTW, all this stadium talk reminds me of the superb SonicsGate documentary, which shows how fucked up the whole city-paying-for-stadium-to-subsidise-professional-sport circus can get:
When I was in Christchurch a few weeks ago, I heard a lot of mumblings about people wanting a covered stadium, but the Council had put the kibosh on it. Try going to the rugby in minus three degrees weather (as I did) and you soon understand why it'd be a great thing to have. Whether it's worth the cost is another matter.
Most especially do not present disabled people as handy for “the jobs you don’t have time for – like cleaning out the coffee machine”
Did someone actually say that?
It amazes me that the private television channel is more dedicated to public service television than the publically-funded channel. I mean, compare and contrast: The Nation (and Think Tank) vs Q&A. Campbell Live vs Close-Up. Sunday vs 60 Minutes. Inside NZ vs... sorry, I used up all of TVNZ's "current affairs."
Not to sully this occasion with a bitch and moan, however. Congratulations, Russell.
I don't believe the "attitude" of not expecting to pay for television/movies is unassailable. It's becoming ingrained because the systems aren't in place for a good, timely, legal way of buying television shows at the moment. But it used to be that way for music, too, and iTunes significantly changed that. Personally, I used to steal music all the time; now that it's so convenient to use iTunes, I buy legally. If TV series were available on their store (or similar) shortly after they aired, I'd happily purchase them too.
That’s not economics, it’s accounting:
You're right, that's what I get for making a Home Ec joke. And I didn't mean I didn't understand it, just that I find the language hard to understand. I mean:
"the forecast finance cost savings exceed the forecast foregone dividends"
just takes me a few reads to wrap around my right-side brain. I almost feel people like English word it that way intentionally, because if he explained it like you just did, no one would support him.
Admission: I struggle to understand most of this:
“Profits attributable to minority shareholders (foregone profits) will reduce the surplus, which is partly offset by a reduction in finance costs on the reduced debt.’’
“Over the mixed ownership programme, the forecast finance cost savings exceed the forecast foregone dividends,’’ Mr English said.
“However, those savings are less than the total forecast foregone profits of the SOEs, which include both dividends and retained earnings.
“That is because state-owned enterprises are expected to earn a commercial rate of return that reflects the risk of owning such companies.’’
I don't consider myself stupid, but when it comes to financial language my brain fogs over. I wonder how many New Zealanders feel the same, and that is why so few seem to understand the economic issues facing this country. I think we should have Economics classes at school, it's just as important as Home Economics.
Y'know, as easy and fun as it is to mock the Herald's front page "news" such as what Sonny Bill Williams got up to this week, this is the sort of stuff that's truly disturbing. Their celebrity-led stories are driven by profit; this sort of story is driven by agenda. It's a disservice to their 1.74m readers.
And to think that Currie just got promoted.
Just as an aside, I found it difficult to settle on an amount to donate. If it were a straight, once-a-year donation, like for a charity, I'd normally give between $20-100. But since this was funding future stories (which is how I saw it, rather than a "reward" for this particular story), there's the implication it'll require ongoing support, so I gave $10. Which seems low, but then again I can get an entire magazine full of stories for less than $10. $20 for one story felt too high, especially if lots of others were going to chip in.
Just my thought process. Maybe something to keep in mind for this type of funding model in the future. I might just be cheap.