|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: September 21, 2002 Five Choices: Or, Why I Won't Give Dave Pell Twelve Dollars -- "Content didn't sell on the net, and it won't sell on the net, because the premises of the rejoinder are false: people sometimes don't deserve to be paid, even if they work hard, because the market doesn't work that way. And people will produce content, even if they don't get paid for the content. The online evidence for this is overwhelming, as two billion free web pages will attest."
Reader Comments...
Content can sell on the Internet. Mr. Downes is distracted by the numerous examples of ridiculously bad businesses. The same exists in the "real world," but I don't hear anyone saying magazines, newspapers and TV programs don't sell. They do, but only if they're good and have a market. The same goes for brick 'n' mortar stores. Most stores close within their first year. That doesn't mean stores as a business medium are going extinct. Mr. Downes seems to assume he is every man. He is one man. There are mailing lists and web sites I would pay $1 a month to use. I would even subscribe to my local newspaper online if it used a better interface, put all of its news & photos online, and was devoid of advertising. It's all a matter of the business model, quality of the service and having a big enough market. The secret, I think, is being better than the free alternatives. I spend HOURS on WebWord every week. $12 for a year's subscription is less than going to 1 two-hour movie with my wife. But I won't pay for WebWord because there are numerous alternatives. That does not preclude a WebWord-like site from going subscription. I might even make a one-time donation to John, if I could easily do so without joining yet-another service such as PayPal. The subscription or payment method is a significant factor. This article is exceedingly long and labors to make its point. IMHO, you need to state your case within 500 words. If you cannot, you're not an effective communicator, or you're discussing particle physics. By the way, this message is 310 words, and some of my words are leaning toward redundancy. Mr. Downes wrote 4,111 words. The personal time he took to write his article had to be worth more than $12. What a waste.
Yes, Downes is correct, there's a surplus of content out there that lowers the perceived value of it all. And any single content provider, as a result, would have a tough problem by trying to make a living out of charging for content in the current market. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to get some compensation. Let's say Dave Pell only retains 5% of his readers under a subscription. Well, he's now getting more money under his subscription model than he was before. Therefore, there's little or no reason for Pell not to charge if he chooses to continue providing content. I think Downes is off-base, however, by saying that "We can only keep royalties up by creating artificial shortages." It might be argued that it's the surplus which is artificial, that, as a new market, it hasn't achieved equilibrium yet. More and more content providers are considering or planning fees as the market develops. Britannica tried it free, and found it dind't make sense. Salon, CNN, and the NY Times charge for portions of their site. Slate is the only example I can think of where someone went free after failing at a subscription price. If Downes were confronted with fees, doubtless he would make some tough choices. But it could also work out to his benefit - - he would find himself with more time, as his reading list would narrow. He would stop reading Pell (though others might not.) Or, he could continue to read free publications that basically aren't worth subscribing to. How wedded is Downes to free content? I have the feeling that the major reason he reads free content online is due to the convenience, not the cost. (I can't speak for Downes, but there's a host of free, interesting, valuable content available to me in the public library - - yet I rarely access it.) I am with Dave Pell on this (and considering it, too, somehow...). If people won't pay for your content, then they undervalue it. Get the money you can, Dave!! Posted by: Frank on September 21, 2002 02:59 PM
Jack, I think you made a great point: Downes spent more than $12 of his time writing that piece! Perhaps he likes writing for free, but if he were given the opportunity to make some money on it... Posted by: Frank on September 21, 2002 03:03 PM
Forcing Regeneration of Permanent Page /weblog/000897.html Posted by: Mac on September 23, 2002 06:56 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |