Re: [redacted] Amazon
Why not? As a consumer, pay for what I use is the best option in my opinion. As a consumer, it probably doesn't affect me price wise - I'm likely to be paying the monthly subscription, but if authors have real page turners then I'd welcome them being compensated over and above those books which turn out to be rather dull. It's no different from websites and bloggers, they get paid by page views - turn out shoddy content and people don't come back. Keep it high quality and they do. Yes, you get the buzzfeed clickbait as a side effect, but people soon cotton on.
Who is to say you wouldn't get more from "pay per page," anyway? I'm going to assume they're not going to a model by which you'd only get your £22 worth of royalties if every single person who did read your book went through the whole lot, no, i'd expect that you'd get more if you kept the readers attention. Amazon has always had a disruptive business model to benefit the consumer, usually by kicking distributors with lazy and outdated business models. Introducing pay per page is a good way of keeping their library quality high, particularly with the amazon unlimited business model of subscription access to a library. I assume netflix pay per second for digital media, I don't see why books should be different going forward. Micropayments in all forms are how the media industry as a whole are actually making money in the 21st century - it's the only business model that has worked.
You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, we're told. It begs the question - why should authors continue to be paid by the cover alone?