I'd buy into your idea with one addition: A "Refund" button at the bottom of the article that I can click to get my money back if the content ended up being low quality. That's a "No questions asked, no arguments given" refund, and it is my sole judgement as to what constitutes crappy quality.
That might buy the publisher (a) some credibility, and (b) an incentive to publish decent quality articles and not clickbait headed by misleading summaries.
Might some people abuse it? Sure. Probably. But I think that a large majority would not. Most of us do get it that people need to get paid.
The refund option isn't fair for the publisher. When you visit a restaurant do you get a refund if you don't like the food? Or a theater? I don't need a refund, if I pay for a few articles and they prove to be crap I won't visit the medium again. Besides we're talking about cents here, it's not like you bought a Picasso only to realize after a couple of months that you don't really like it.
> When you visit a restaurant do you get a refund if you don't like the food? Or a theater?
Weeeell, some people do exactly that (and have done since the beginning of time, as popularized in folk songs). The iOS AppStore does that, and that's also "pennies". Amazon does that. It's no small part of their success.
It's a question of self-belief. A seller who is confident about the quality of his delivery will not mind guaranteeing refunds, because chances are that very few people will take him up on it. Considering your costs are pretty much the same whether you serve 10,000 or 1,000 webpages, it doesn't really matter if you get 9,995 or 995 refunds.
I think you have a good point, but I would liken it to: If I go to a restaurant, and they give me raw chicken, then no, I'm not going to give them my money.
I guess, it's a bad analogy, as food that makes you sick is easier to discern than "shoddy article with no journalistic integrity"
Maybe if it was implemented in a different way, like a running tally for a month for which you are billed. You read an article, then decide whether or not you are willing to pay for that article. At the end of the month you get a bill for the amount that you agreed to. Kind of like the 'pay what you will' but with a set asking fee per article.
That might buy the publisher (a) some credibility, and (b) an incentive to publish decent quality articles and not clickbait headed by misleading summaries.
Might some people abuse it? Sure. Probably. But I think that a large majority would not. Most of us do get it that people need to get paid.