If I understand correctly, in the proposed models I would pay an annual fee, a monthly fee, and another fee if I consume more than X stories per month. I get unlimited cable for one monthly price. I visit my gym as many times as I like for one monthly price.

It’s got to be simple.

The second point is advertising. If I’m paying for content I DO NOT want to see advertising. This is a deal breaker for me. In the past I paid for yahoo’s premium mail service but when they refused to remove the text ads I canceled promptly.

Here is what I want.

Charge me the subscription price for the print edition. You keep the paper. Give me ad free online access. I’ll save you printing and distribution costs.

Deal?

The point is, however, that neither Brill’s idea nor Mutter’s seems original; they resemble very much some of the (micro)payment platforms that already exist and operate online. Tom May provides a good review of the various systems in his article in the latest issue of the British .Net magazine. More importantly, some of the existing solutions, for example Znak it! (www.znak-it.com), are much better or at least more universal and easier to implement. Znak it! has been developed especially for the “traditional” content providers, like the newspapers and magazines, to go digital and increase their revenues. But it can be used by any content creator or publisher worldwide.

Znak it! was presented first during the 2008 Web 2.0 Expo. Then, it was recognized as one of the most innovative content monetization solutions and invited to participate in the Digital Innovator’s Summit in Berlin, Germany. Znak it! was also one of the silver sponsors of 2009 Web 2.0. Expo in San Francisco.

I am afraid both Brill and Mutter try to re-invent the wheel, or even worse. Alan Mutter seems particularly dishonest in his promoting ViewPass as his original idea. At the same time, he refuses to inform his audience that there are other better solutions, claiming (deceitfully) “I do not let anyone – including me – write self-promotional stuff in my blog.” Now, he started deleting my comments inviting him to cooperate with Znak it! from which he seems to have borrowed so much — he had had a chance to learn the details of Znak it! technology and plans from our earlier correspondence.

Jon, 1) Well, business is always about hitting the right price point (including, potentially, zero), but I hear you; 2) Haha, I was born in 1985, but I hear you on that one, too; 3) That is not necessarily what is happening to newspapers, but yes; and 4) I think that’s not likely without some sort of incentive beyond “doing the right thing,” which rates more highly in surveys than in reality. —Zach

4. What portion of the people who would subscribe under the Brill model would do so without a pay-wall, because they simply think they are “doing the right thing?” (see comment #2 above. Rather than soaking your best customers by turning off access to what they like most, what if you just enabled a pay-what-you wish model? Would the incremental revenue be that much different? A paper could still charge premium ad rates against those very special people, and not lose *any* other ad revenue.

1. In American business history, name another dying industry which arrested its decline by raising price.

2. Name another online business which places “deserves” in the first line of its mission statement. For the love of god, please don’t let anyone born after 1977 see that.

3. (Stolen from someone else, I can’t remember whom): If a 14-year-old with broadband access and too much time on her hands can wreck your business model not because she hates you but because she loves your product, should you maybe look for another line of work?