IN THE MODE.

I’m not going to be one to point out again that there is some extensive discussion about possible models to monetise digital news at the moment. Well actually I am – but I do have a wider point.

As we all now know super-pimp Rupert let it be known that all (that’s every one mind you, not just some, pay attention at the back) of his titles would be starting to charge for access to their online outlets. I believe this is kicking off with the Sunday Times, which to me is a better proposition than most. And we have all of the hoo-ha debate about freemium, premium, paywalls and the rest.

Paul Carr hit out with a great ‘who cares?‘ piece in the Telegraph; Brad Rourke made an interesting point about the distinction between news and journalism, and what can possibly be charged for each; while Simon Jenkins followed up with a thoughtful piece on how news organisations should learn from the music business and look outside their traditional revenue streams. Nice.

And of course the wonderful Charlie Brooker made some solid economic proposals too. Hard to argue with his concept of magic coins – one which I’ll come back to later. But I’ve got another idea. Why shouldn’t journalists put their money where their mouth is, and get their asses on the corner to sell their wares. What I say is: make like a Brazilian hooker.

This isn’t an idle thought. I’ve put a lot of thought into Brazilian hookers over the past few weeks – but more specifically into the rather unique business model adopted by Brazilian bordellos. It works like this:

• You (yes, you) sign up to be a hooker at one of these long-running establishments, after deciding which one fits with your personal style and sexy ethos
• You pay a flat fee per day, week or month to the madam, monsieur or whoever the fabulous and no doubt kindly proprietor is
• All the money you make from your trade, you keep
• That’s it

Now why couldn’t this work for news – or using the distinction some people have made – at least journalism? Journos pay a fixed fee per month – the news organisation provides the service and shelter – and the writers get to keep every penny their stories earn.

So newspapers would essentially become a provider of service – they would bring expertise in editorial, the delivery platform, a secure means of taking and distributing payment. But also bring with them a firmly established set of values, mood, decor and style which a journalist could choose to associate themselves with (and vice versa, I guess).

Ah, yes you say – but how is this payment made? No one wants to pay for content. Well firstly there’s advertising. The newspaper of course will provide (or at least contract out) the ad-serving technology and delivery mechanisms. And popular stories will attract traffic. So all ad revenue from a particular page goes to the journalist who wrote it. Simple – as with hooking it’s survival of the fittest (pun intended).

Secondly this model enables subscriptions to be a far more attractive proposition for consumers. Say you start off by paying a tenner. This gives you the right to view say 1000 pages at a penny each. Some pages could cost more – perhaps Page 3 in the Sun, or other premium sections – but let’s say most cost a penny. Each time you read a story, the balance drops by 1p. You can go back to the same story without paying again – this only seems fair. And of course at any time you can top up your balance – augmented no doubt by a willingness to undergo behavioural and more intrusive types of advertising.

But let’s say you share the page. From a form on the site itself – via Twitter, Facebook, email, whatever. If your friends go and read the story via your link (free of charge of course) the ad revenue from that impression is split – between you, the author and the newspaper. And this tops your account back up a little, so you get to read more incrementally more news through the mechanism of sharing things you know your friends will like. The newspaper gets reimbursed for the content and ad serving. The author gets more payment. And crucially brands who are advertising get to reach more like-minded readers. Readers could even have their sharing sponsored by a brand of their choice.

But deep down, as it always has been and always will be, it’s about great content. One of the main complaints over the past week at least seems to have been that people won’t pay because they can get the same thing elsewhere for free from the BBC. Bullshit. Good news outlets have always differentiated themselves.

I’m sure there’s more to this. Things like creation of revenue to fund younger aspiring hacks who can’t afford to pay the newspaper fees to start off with. Perhaps micro-economies could start to develop around superstar writers. I don’t know. And a tiered model so that it’s fairer to those further down the scale.

So come on journos – cough up. And come on economists – surely my witless ramblings can’t actually work?