<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>SocialMedia - Latest Comments in Micropayments Won&amp;#8217;t Save Newspapers</title><link>http://socialmedia.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://socialmedia.disqus.com/micropayments_won8217t_save_newspapers/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:22:24 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Micropayments Won&amp;#8217;t Save Newspapers</title><link>http://blog.socialmedia.com/micropayments-wont-save-newspapers/#comment-6147492</link><description>&lt;p&gt;And, even as a content access monopoly, newspapers barely (directly) charged the reader, basing most of their revenue model on their advertising monopoly instead.  So micro-payments are effectively a huge price hike for what most readers pay for most of their news content, and the readers have options as you list.  Hmmm.  As compared to the oft mentioned but IMO misconstrued iTunes analogy in which many listeners felt they were getting music cheaper and easier than buying complete CDs, music that btw they were passionate about, and there was no other (completely legal) option in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">gzino</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:22:24 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>