Slashdot Mirror
Piro On Why .Coms Don't Work
cabbey writes: "Say the name MegaTokyo and most people, if they recognize it, think 'one of the best manga/comics on the net today. (ignoring the recent 'stick figure dom' days while Piro was moving).' But few people think about the social, economic and philosophic issues the authors' rants can delve into. This morning Piro put up a rather long 'rant' that's really a catching insight into why the dot-com world didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. (archive link to the rant in question, it's below the comic. ;) "
Is this story being run because MegaTokyo runs banner ads on Slashdot? I can't think of any other reason why it would be called news.
Interesting commentary in the rant about the concept of people not wanting to suddenly pay for something historically free. I wonder what will happen once the current generation of users accustomed to free content is replaced by a newer one more accustomed to fees? Will there be a more lucrative dot-com explosion then?
People will balk initially at paying for content, but I think they'll gradually get used to it. I remember being pissed that I'm paying for cable AND for the commercials they're sending me, but now I've just come to accept it.
Mind you, I think this is a lousy thing to happen, but I can't think of a way to thwart it. Our only hope are the sites spewing out free content to contrast with the ones providing it for cost. As long as these places go on, it will be hard to corner people into paying.
It seems the article isn't so much about why dot-com's fail, but rather why:
1) People want everything in life for free
2) The Author is too cheap to pony up a little bit of dough to send out an animated card.
Since he runs a site and knows the costs behind running a site, one would think he'd be the first to want to SUPPORT a site by signing up.
Considering one of the main points Piro is trying to make about the value of respect for a site/company/individual, and how poorly this has been strongarmed into squeezing money out of customers, in particular for an originally free service. Considering the pay services for Slashdot in the works, I find this posting ironic to say the least.
/. t shirts on thinkgeek, how about some cool items. An engraved /. (the symbol) metal coffe mug? A swiss army knife with green handle and inlayed /. symbol? People are a lot more willing to give money if they are under the impressions they are gaining something, in particular something physical for their money. SLashdot should take note.
Megatokyo has my respect, big time. I have at least 6 shirts of there's, two others I gave the girlfriend, and as soon as Im gainfully employed again, Im buying that 'F33r my l33t n3k1d sk1llz' boxer shorts. They've made some money off of me, and they earned it. I just wished it was enough for them to work full time; daily updates to megatokyo would be reason for me to leap out of bed with a smile on my face each and every morning.
Perhaps Slashdot could do something similiar? Instead of the subscription service, some merchandizing would be better. Instead of the lame
Toodles D. Clown
Yes, increased your online wealth by stealing from the artist ... Strange words to be coming from an artist...?
He's not advocating that you do this. He is stating it as a fact-of-life on the internet. Which it is.
Well, here we go. I visit Megatokyo daily, and I both cringed and laughed when I saw a full story here on Slashdot about the rant.
From what I understand, Piro (et al.) have refused to put a donations button on their site, instead trying to "make it commercially" on their own. At the moment, that takes the form of getting people to buy their art in the form of t-shirts and the like.
But Piro (et al.), from my understanding, are also gearing up for a printed work; Taking the archival strips and trying to find a publisher.
While more power to them, it's interesting that they will be charging for what they have given away for free. :)
Notably, they've reduced the resolution of the archival artwork online. Ostensibly to reduce bandwidth fees. (I do believe that, somewhat, but it also has the effect of rendering the archival images somewhat pixelated and not very printable.) In response, a number of the Megatokyo community members have mirrored the original strips in their original resolution, however that won't help with the new strips coming online.
While they are trying to be more commercial (by their own insistance), there has been a fair amount of "drama" in some rants and IRC talk from Piro's camp, which at times appears, in my opinion, to be less than professional (which is fine if you're not trying to be a commercial entity).
Inclusive in this angst is talk about their rising monthly costs. I can only imagine what a good Slashdotting will do for Piro's blood pressure. Plus the influx of new members on the site and message board will surely grind their server to a halt and keep their bandwidth peaked.
By not accepting donations, (and by modifying his site so it incidentally supports his move toward being a commercial entity) he may be biting the hand that wants to feed him (but can't afford $20 t-shirts). I hope he makes it commercially in the next few days before the bandwidth fees hit him. :)
I love the art, style and story at Megatokyo. I wish them well, whether they choose to be commercial or not. And yes, I would buy a softcover printed Megatokyo book/anthology.
Slashdot: Everything in Moderation, including Moderation itself.
I think he's pointing out something blindingly obvious about the human condition - I bet 90% of the people trading MP3s don't give it a second thought. They probably feel all l337. Doesn't make it right, but it explains the motivations of 90% of music-sharers.
Those motivations are what these companies and industry groups (Sony, RIAA, MPAA, TWAT...) need to understand.
I don't agree with smashing IP law and having a free-for-all, but the obvious non-understaning of what makes netizens tick is what makes me so angry when these stupid IP lawsuits get thrown about like so much Cheez-Wiz.
Face it, content creators, it's a new paradigm out there. Adjust, destroy, or be destroyed...
GTRacer /. needs is a "Nani Naze /." page...
- What
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Well, let's see. We've had billions of people without a clue telling us why dot coms have failed. We've even had a few industry experts tell us why.
:p More seriously, this is nothing more than a shameless plugging. There's no new insight, there's nothing there that hasn't been said already about dot coms.
Now we've got a comic artist telling us why.
Screw it, I'm going to jump in, too. You know why they failed?
$1000 chair budgets. That's $1k per employee.
Heh.
Well, this rant by Piro doesn't surprise me in the least. Besides, it will help condition all slashdot users into believing that its a good thing they're going to start charging for a "premium" version of this site. The weird thing is, I LIKE the banner ads that are here. They pertain to my daily life. I'd rather just do donations to /., and am actually kind of surprised that there isn't a donations link (yes, I see the supporters link, but that's way too many clicks to spend my money) in main navigation.
Why did a free ecard site decide to go to a pay service when every other site has free ecards? I give Blue Mountain Arts three months to live out the dotcom death thrash. Fucked Company anyone?
Maybe if he'd done a comic on how it, apparently, fails.
I think he's premature, like many things about media, content and the net. Audiences are looking for different things on the net. Sure, in the early days almost everything worked, but once the novelty wore off there was, and is, focus on what apparently works. Don't move too fast to condemn the net, but rather than focusing entirely on what doesn't work, try to figure out what does. I'm getting a kick out of flash animated mini-films, I'd even kick in a subscription if I could be guaranteed a regular feed of neat animations via the web, and they certainly are getting more polished, as opposed to the crude stuff from a couple years ago.
Bottom line, be patient, markets sometimes take years to develop.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think many of us would be willing to pay a certain amount for services we perceive as useful. However, I doubt the average user can afford to pay, say, $6 per month to each site they use.
I mean, I visit 4 sites regularly (daily basis) and probably around 5 sites once a week, and countless others whenever necessary. Using the Salon model, I would be paying $24 per month to access my favorite 4 sites. What about the other sites I visit? Do I need to pay full price just to access them once in awhile. Granted, their information is useful to me, but not $6/month useful. Now, I relize they all wouldn't charge $6, but I was just using that as an example of how the monthly cost for a few web sites can add up. I would imagine most of the big sites would charge around $3-$10 per month.
That brings us to the problem - many of the sites I visit (Salon, Britannica, etc.) want you to pay a flat monthly rate for premium access. I would be more likely to pay on my favorite sites you could have the option of paying-per-use.
It's not so much that the free sites are turning into pay sites... it's that the payments are MUCH TOO HIGH. All these guys want $11.95 a year, $4.95 a month, whatever... and many of them are for services I use only rarely.
I'd gladly pay a nickel to end an e-card. But $11.95 a year when I only send half a dozen of them? I can buy real greeting cards cheaper than that.
A few years ago, everybody was talking about micropayment schemes. And Paypal's initial blurb talked about how you could use Paypal to send $0.01 to each of twenty friends... they'd charge your credit card $5.00 for the first payment then draw down your $5 balance a penny at a time. These days, Paypal is doing everything possible to DISCOURAGE you from using credit cards as a payment source...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Unless there's an equally slick and well packaged alternative available for free exactly one click away. Been on the 'net recently? It simply doesn't map well to any other model or analogy: there's a very low cost of entry for suppliers, no expectation of payment by consumers, and it's a transparent market, so you can't obfuscate your charges like long distance phone companies do. ;-)
The only analogy that springs to mind is a huge and ongoing flea market, in one massive field, with free admission for everyone. Unless you are the only seller with shinola, and everyone else is selling shit, you can't charge, because your customers will just wander off. Hell, even if you are the only one selling genuine shinola, there's so many other stalls giving away "shinola-like" products that your customers might just wander off and never find their way back.
What's my solution? Give up trying to make money on the 'net, stupid. But hell, as long as greedy and ignorant venture capitalists are prepared to throw good money after bad in wonderful follies like Slashdot, I'm happy to go to their stall. When it bows to the inevitable and shuts up shop (or starts charging, which is effectively the same), there will still be plenty of other equally daft vendors opening up free stalls. And if there isn't, well, I was never paying anything, so I haven't lost anything, other than my investment in whoring karma.
People who say that we should expect to pay to support sites like Slashdot are rather missing the point. The whole model of commercial sites is doomed, unless they're genuine retaillers like Amazon. High quality non-retail sites are simply fuckedcompanies from the get-go, and the sooner we all admit that (quietely), the sooner we can get back to lapping up the benefits of spending money from rich, greedy, ignorant venture capitalists, and enjoying the lovely short lived ride. It's going to be over soon, and you and I (if we're being honest) just aren't going to pay for another go on it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The only thing worse than Jon Katz is Piro.
Anyway - there was an internet boom BECAUSE of the stock market. The new technology that became available to a new market played a big part, but it all happened because of the stock market. Investors saw an opportunity to get in on the ground floor (ie. buy low) of a company in a new marketplace that had a potential of becoming "the next Microsoft" - in other words, a monopoly. Everyone thought Netscape was going to be the next Microsoft. Then Yahoo. Then Ebay. Then Amazon. Then Macromedia. Then Real. The money flowed into these companies, and they bought equipment, and people, and that sparked investment in the more sensible computer and software companies. The business model was: get dominant marketshare by dumping the product for free, then when the competition was murdered, charge em up the nose for the service because you're the only game in town. In the interim, revenue was stopgapped by ads. But in the long run, when it appeared that the only "next Microsoft" that would appear was. . . Microsoft, I think it became pretty obvious to a lot of people that internet stocks were overinflated.
As the internet content became more saturated with ads, and more vertical to corporate interests, and more eyeballs got funnelled to less and less sources - it all became less and less compelling for the vast majority of net newcomers. You and I, the DSL subscribers, the tech workers, the geeks, didn't really notice much of a change, other than - our nongeek brother in law who used to email us every day, now has discontinued his AOL account because he can't download free music on Napster anymore, or all the cool little independent sites had shut down because they couldn't afford to stay up anymore. This was all secondary to the cessation of flow of investment dollars as all the loans based on them started coming due. THAT is why the dotcom boom went bust. The content issue was merely a side effect.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.