"News Is Free, and Talk Is Cheap"A model for monetizing online news content

News companies have been notoriously reluctant to charge readers for content online, but it looks like 2009 is shaping up to be the year in which they're willing to actually start experimenting with charging for online content -- out of necessity. With stock prices tumbling, further rounds of layoffs looming, and several major media companies filing for bankruptcy, most have gotten the message that unless they come up with a way to make money online, they'll soon be out of business.

But the pitfalls of charging for online content are evident:

1) No one is going to pay for something they fundamentally expect to be free, and over the past decade, news companies have basically taught consumers that they should expect news to be free.

2) No one is going to pay for something they can get elsewhere for free, so charging for news online will only work if nobody is giving away that same news for free. The degree of solidarity required among traditionally cutthroat media companies for this to work is not trivial.

3) No one is going to pay for something online unless it's dead simple. Thus, if a person has to sign up for half a dozen payment accounts so he can read all the news he wants, or if he has to put any thought at all into his transactions, he's not going to put in the effort.

Proposed solutions

One of the possibilities being tossed around is a micropayments system, in which a reader would be charged a tiny amount -- say, a penny or even less -- each time he or she clicks on an article. Another is a monthly subscription system, in which for a set fee, the user would get unfettered access to all of a site's content.

Both of these possibilities suffer, of course, from Pitfalls 1 and 2, and the micropayments system will only overcome Pitfall 3 if one payment system gets uniformly adopted by just about every news site out there. The subscription system may face the same problem, if a person regularly gets his news from more than one Web site. To overcome that problem, media companies might think about adopting a Netflix-type business model, in which you get access to hundreds or even thousands of participating news sites for one monthly fee. But again, that would require a great many media companies to get on board with the same system.

A way to keep news free

Because of all these pitfalls, I suggest that news companies consider instead a revenue model that allows news content to remain free but charges a small monthly subscription fee to sound off in the article comments section and in other discussion forums.

After all, a man may value a news article written by someone else at less than a penny -- but he will likely value his own opinion about that news article at quite a bit more than that.

This type of revenue model would allow all information to remain free -- both the news and the comments sections could be publicly accessible -- and charge only for the platform to have one's voice heard. In a sense, the news companies would be selling classified ads, where the ad is a person's opinion.

The problem with comments

Now, one of the reasons why I would expect someone to be skeptical of a revenue model that charges for the ability to comment is because up until now, newspapers' online comments sections have been notoriously plagued with offensive comments. Many Web sites have instituted obstacles that make it harder for people to persistently post abusive comments, but they are -- at most -- an inconvenience to tech-savvy users. E-mail address bans don't work; it's simple to set up a throwaway account on GMail or Hotmail. IP address bans don't work; many Web surfers have dynamic IPs that change each time they log on. And complaining to users' Internet service providers is completely futile.

But with a pay-to-comment revenue model, one of the fringe benefits is that it would instantly elevate the level of discourse to the same level we see in the letters to the editor in most papers' print versions -- by making it very pricey for users to habitually violate a site's terms of service.

Suppose a site charges $3 a month for the ability to comment on articles and participate in discussion forums. For a user who obeys the site's terms of service, that's pocket change. But for a user who habitually violates the terms of service, it could cost him many times that, since one of the conditions of his subscription could be that if he violates the terms of service, his account will be disabled, with no refund available.

Self-applied 'R' ratingsA model for tagging potentially offensive content

News Web sites could improve the level of discourse in their comments sections by adopting a model for self-censored user-submitted content.

I propose that the average user would be willing to flag his own comments as "R-rated" if it would give him more leniency in what would be permitted to be published.

There are, of course, certain comments that should not be tolerated even in R-rated posts -- hate speech or threats of violence, for instance -- but mere profanity or off-color jokes could be treated with less scrutiny than they are in a comments system that does not allow for such distinctions.

Such a system could have R-rated posts hidden by default, but allow users to select whether they wish to change that default and have R-rated comments displayed. This system should prove acceptable to those who find such content objectionable, since they need not be exposed to it unless they make a conscious choice to, and it should also prove acceptable to those who write R-rated content, because it results in less censorship.

Guaranteed good behaviorA model for enforcing terms of service policies

Practically every reputable news Web site has a lengthy terms of service policy, which users must agree to before they can submit comments on articles, participate in discussion forums, or upload photos or videos.

Such terms of service policies typically present a laundry list of prohibited conduct ... but what is the penalty for violating the policy?

Because the Internet is, for all practical purposes, completely anonymous, the most a site can do is de-activate the user's account and block his or her e-mail address or IP address -- but anyone with a little bit of persistence can circumvent those blocks.

There are two ways to make penalties actually serve as deterrents to bad conduct online.

The first is to alter the anonymity of the Internet and require people to identify themselves when they submit content. By making their identities known, they put their "real world" reputations at stake. And assuming that some sort of identity verification system is used to confirm their identities, an abusive user will not be able to re-register for a new account unless he can falsify his identity -- which is a bit trickier than just creating a new throwaway e-mail address.

The second is to hold users financially accountable for their conduct by requiring a small one-time fee to create an account. If the user obeys the site's terms of service, that's all he'll ever have to pay. But if a user persistently violates a site's terms of service, he'll quickly empty his wallet by creating new accounts to replace those that have been deactivated.

My own company, Truyoo, offers sites that accept user-submitted content a simple, easy-to-implement way to use both of these strategies.

Sites that implement Truyoo will have access to the verified identities of their users and are covered by the Truyoo Good Behavior Guarantee: "If a Truyoo-verified user violates your site's terms of service, you'll get $1 -- and they'll get banned for good."

Because a Truyoo ID works on any site that accepts Truyoo, it is much more powerful than any site-specific solution; if a user violates one site's terms of service, he loses his ability to post not only on that site, but on every other Truyoo site. And because Truyoo IDs are accepted at multiple sites, their value is much greater than any site-specific solution.

The best part is, Truyoo is free to implement, and it's extremely affordable for anyone who is willing to behave himself. Right now, you can get a Truyoo ID for a one-time identity verification fee of $1.35. Considering that most people pay $20 to $30 a month just to access the Internet, the value of a Truyoo ID is huge, and will only grow as more sites adopt Truyoo.