|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: August 01, 2002 A Shift Registers in Willingness to Pay for Internet Content (New York Times) -- "Generally, the survey found that of the 1,700 sites charging for content, the 100 with the most revenue drew 97 percent of all revenue and the top 50 sites drew 85 percent of the revenue." (Comments: Like many things in life, it will probably continue to be a winner take most situation.)
Reader Comments...
winner takes most More like: winners file lawsuits or have their puppet politicians criminalize or price-out the underdog competition (think 'net radio). Our Internet is dying. Their Internet is just beginning. Now, go home and be a good little consumer. Sit down, shut up, and buy. Posted by: Jack on August 1, 2002 10:00 AM
Jack Is it possible that the ideal of a free Internet is over? I know that there are many who believe that it should be free but I don't see anyone asking for a free offline world. I mean because it is on the net why should not the offline world and its rules apply - you pay for it offline, why not on? Before you maul me, I am not taking a side, merely being the devil....and his advocate. bhahahahahah (that's my evil laugh!)
Why is it that print, radio and TV ads somehow "work" by mere exposure to them, while online ads cannot unless you're clicking through? You don't click on an ad in the newspaper but it is valid, and most people flip through commecials or go to the toilet or something else, and advertisers pay out the butt for them. Posted by: Darin on August 1, 2002 03:15 PM
A famous quote in advertising goes, "I know half my advertising dollars aren't workin - I just don't know which half!" Posted by: MadMan on August 1, 2002 04:28 PM
JB, the free Internet is over the day we concede it to the corporations. Please note that when I say "free" I am not referring to money. Free is shorthand for freedom. > you pay for it offline, why not on? Take my radio example. What about pirate radio? In America we the public, at least on paper, own our airspace. Regulation is necessary only because it's technically impossible for every citizen to broadcast their own signals without making the medium useless. Why then has the regulatory process pushed out small-time operators? Because corporations control the politicians. Corporations rule the offline world, and they will soon rule the online world. The mistake the corporations made was in letting a generation of kids grow up with the idea of a free society. That's a dangerous idea that will soon be squashed. Posted by: Jack on August 1, 2002 06:39 PM
Well, I'd rather pay for content on some of my favourite sites (e.g. Guardian.co.uk), rather than pay for tools like PopUpCop to stop the bloody popup adverts. As long as they guaranteed no adverts on the pay-for version. As for the discussion on web freedom. Is it just me or do you chaps in the USA get more worked up over this than us lot over here? And if so, what does that say about us? Posted by: Alan Fisher on August 2, 2002 07:20 AM
Baaaaaaa! Actually, I think that Americans are more prone to subscribe to the conspiracy view of history, while we're more likely to subscribe to the cock-up theory. Either that, or you're all paranoid. Posted by: Alan Fisher on August 2, 2002 10:38 AM
Alan, what is the cock-up theory? What does it mean? And yes, Jack, I did do a netcheck before I asked this time! Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 2, 2002 10:47 AM
Aha, but did you search for the word 'cock-up' at Google and look at the fourth search result? Posted by: Jack on August 2, 2002 11:36 AM
Ballon + Needle = John + Cock-up Search on Google Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 2, 2002 11:44 AM
John, Jack's reference says it all. In Britain, people tend to believe that things go wrong because of incompetence (or, in the vernacular, a cock-up) rather than malign intent. Perhaps because we have so much experience of incompetence among our politicians etc. The reference Jack found deserves extra kudos for mentioning the Reginald Perrin TV show (an all time classic). Posted by: Alan Fisher on August 2, 2002 11:52 AM
Yesterday, an Associated Press item reported that a group of newspapers with online editions would start charging for access to the online edition. Loud applause!! Not only does it compensate the publications -- but it also helps ensure some quality. (If only blockheads write for free, we'll only get writing from blockheads unless compensation becomes more widespread. As for whether or not revenues will be concentrated in the hands of a few, yes, undoubtedly; but that's not bad, it only reflects consumption habits. It would be my preference that users were billed on a per page basis, rather than subscriptions: this will enable smaller sites to share some part of the pie. Heck, I get over 50,000 visits a year to my site, and only about $100 in amazon commissions & donations. The free web HAS to change. Posted by: Frank Lynch on August 3, 2002 12:57 PM
Well, Samuel Johnson would have called him one, at least, unless John were to justify webword.com as supporting his business (that, at least, is why the New York Times offers most of its online content for free: they see it as supporting newspaper sales). Posted by: Frank Lynch on August 3, 2002 08:09 PM
Oh yeah - - I forgot this additional point re Samuel Johnson and geting money for what you do... Posted by: Frank Lynch on August 4, 2002 12:42 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |