Slashdot Mirror
Will Internet Users Pay for Content?
securitas writes "One of the most challenging business problems is trying to figure out how to make money on the Internet, especially with content. Louis Borders believes that Internet users will pay for online content and explains in an interview the how and why. He is founder of Borders Group, a $3.4 billion company that is the second-largest bookseller in the USA, as well as the billion-dollar online grocer and dotcom flameout, Webvan. Borders thinks he has found the answers and has just launched KeepMedia, an online newsstand subscription service. As someone who has had spectacular success and failure in his career, Borders' latest venture will be an interesting one to watch."
As a /. subscriber I guess I'm proof positive they will pay. Not only do people need to feel that they are actually getting something for the money they're paying, the price also has to be right.
/. being one of the largest content delivery systems on the net, I'd be curious to find out how much revenue they generate based upon subscribers alone.
With
Perhaps Taco or one of the other "powers that be" would like to weigh in on this issue?
Mike
Do you think the freeloader mentality on the Internet is ready for change?
.02
I think it's at the turn of the hockey stick, because it's at about 15 percent of the Web population that's paying for content right now--that's still a low number. Very soon, you'll see that the content that's left to be free is content that will not be trusted; content that has a bias. Just like when you pick up a magazine that's free, and you don't trust it.
Umm, I don't trust sites on the web that I have to pay for. The only sites that I see on the web that have pay-for content are porn sites and I would MUCH rather use free sites like sublimedirectory or thehun.com just to avoid paying for stupid content. At least when I know that it is free and I am disappointed it's fine.
Will you get cooperation from some of the big media conglomerates that already own a collection of big-brand magazines, such as AOL Time Warner and Conde Nast?
Oh, we don't have them at launch, but we're thrilled to have 140 titles. We've had a lot of meetings with them--extremely positive meetings--and I'm sure they'll come into the platform in short order.
You are thrilled to have 140 titles because no one is buying into your dotcom bullshit. If anyone is going to want to pay to read stuff online they are going to do it on that site only. Perusing the titles made me think, wow, this sucks hard. I will stick to news.google.com for now. At least I get free news that is basically interesting, and if it's not on the front page, I know I can quickly search for it.
I see the Googles of the world like the freeways, where you're going from one place to the next, and that's the place to go. They have a very viable business being the main artery across the Internet. Our approach is to be a walled garden, where we bring in this very high-quality content. As a consumer, you would certainly want to use the freeway and the walled garden for different needs.
I (and plenty of others, including NON-GEEKS) see Google as God of the Internet. If I want to find an article, I search google and it finds it fast (including newspapers, magazines on the web, etc). Why in the world would I want to search your index of pay-for stuff (and limited to 140 titles currently) when I can use google to search 140+ titles on a SINGLE TOPIC in seconds? This idea is going back to Library's and making you pay to use them. I don't think it's going to work.
I just think that Google has cornered the market on this type of crap long before this guy could. news.google.com provides what everyone needs for EVERY media type.
I will stick to free content thank you.
Just my worthless
On the "Border" of another dot com fallout..?
Other's will, but I won't simply because (for me) the Internet itself is the content that I'm after, if I wanted hallow content I'd use AOL or something.
Why doesn't someone go ask Salon if people will pay for content?
We are exceedingly cheap. We expect FREE on the internet. It's been burned into our heads since the dot com boom. At one point, "free" topped "sex" in web searches. We think if it's digitized and non-physical, we should have access to it and be able to copy it. We can't grasp the concept of monetary value for digital things. We can't wrap our brains around the idea that those digital things took work to create, and people that made them want to be paid for them. Since we can get it so quickly and easily over the internet, we just cant comprehend that.
If MS ever started selling Office exclusively as a download, they'd lose millions of dollars. Because Office just wouldn't feel like a real product to them. Put a CD in that consumers hand, though, and they're more willing to pay for it.
With the exception of Apple users, who will do whatever Stevie tells them to (buy music at the Apple Store! On your Ipod! Now!), most denizens of the internet are, let's be blunt, cheap bastards.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
...but wasn't one of the original ideas behind the Internet and the World Wide Web the spread of knowledge?
Doesn't making people pay for ideas kind of make people not want to *have* ideas?
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Quoting ESR:
If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say you are ``content'', but using it as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect. Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (``creators'', as they say) of the works. The term ``content'' reveals what they really feel.
As long as other people use the term ``content provider'', political dissidents can well call themselves ``malcontent providers''.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Who is this "internet users" person and why are you asking him this on slashdot instead of just emailing him?
I would never, *NEVER* pay for "content". There is nothing that important that I *need* badly enough to pay for it. The nature of the internet means I can just go somewhere else and get the same "content" (God, I hate that word) for free.
But:
1) only once (unless it's cents - micropayments)
2) no DRM copy restrictions
3) open file formats
2 & 3 are essential for fair.
I only started buying DVDs when 2 & 3 were true (playable under Linux).
...but the majority of people will find other free sites if their choices start charging. The Net's already got more content on it than you can ever hope to get through, and most folks I know are content with the free sites that are currently available. Have exclusive content on your site that you're thinking of charging for? Chances are that someone's already got something similar posted for free.
Of course, it always helps when a clueless webmaster forgets to set up their site to exclude Google's caching too.
I believe Web Content is much like Music when it comes to "making money".
Bands rarely make cash by selling their CD, but often in side-offers like t-shirts, stickers, etc ("merch"), and ticket sales to shows.
Web artists/authors/etc, rarely make (enough) cash by selling memberships/content, but often on side-offers, like ads, merch, etc.
S
We've been accustomed to free content and will tend to avoid payment whenever possible. Most people (especially AOL users) will figure they've already paid and shouldn't have to do so again.
Salon Magazine has been forced to modify its subscription model in order to survive (if you call that surviving).
Perhaps one model that might work is a monthly credit from your ISP that will go to pay for initial usage of pay/view content.
Given how few people will even pay for Slashdot content, we're not likely to see this widely adopted anytime soon.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
But there are certain obvious conditions that one seems to forget:
1. People have to want what's on sale
2. It must not be available anywhere else (cheaper)
3. Profit.
AFAICS everything comes down to 1 and 2, and if one does the job sem-decently, 3 as well. So, yes, people will pay for "content", but they must want it and it must be unique (or perceived to be unique, since perception is as good as, or possibly exactly the same as, reality.)
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The problem is that you need to actually provide something that's worth looking at for the price.
I read my newspapers and shit online now, cause I don't want to pay AU$1 per day for a paper. I'd be interested in buying online newspapers etc and payng a lower fee every day, and one that represents the value that I am getting out of it. Just think about it - sure, you gotta have reporters and stuff. But all the stuff is typed into a computer, so it doesn't particularly cost much more to produce than it costs for the paper bit, and I ain't getting $1 worth of paper with it.
iTunes has shown that at least apple people are prepared to pay for songs online, as long as they reflect their true value.
Could it work for other things? Sure. Seems to work for some of the more major porn sites - some people don't want to have to troll (literally) thru usenet to get their daily fix. And as someone above pointed out, slashdot subscribers show this.
The problem occurs when stuff is done online for the sake of doing it online, or published, but then charged exhoribitantly, and piracy is too easy. The pricing is the issue; users will only pay for what they think they are getting value for - and piracy becomes a more attractive option as the cost rises.
If the content is porn, and the price is right... wel.. Users will pay!
BTW, users will shortly pay for Service Packs from MS, apparently. Does that count for content??
Users pay to get contented, not for content actually.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I dont go to many sites that employ staff, I might drop a few quid to a site I really like that is struggling to pay hosting bills, but the best sites in life are free. Charge money, and I'll go elsewhere. I used to run a 2000 visits-a-day site back in 99, I did it for fun. One of the biggest sites I goto now is trektoday, with no paid-for staff. Once you start charging by the page, I'll think "Is this really worth it?", I'll stress over every click, doesnt matter if its 1 cent a page or 0.001 cents. Its akin to paying per minute, or byte, for internet access.
That's a very ambivalent way of phrasing "channeling thousands upon thousands of simultaneous connections to your website, reducing your servers to a pile of flaming wreckage".
high quality banner ads
high quality flash ads
high quality vb scripting
high quality address harvesting
etc. . . .
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Yes and I will give you the same answer I gave a friend when he asked me :
Q: "Why should I go on living in this unjust, inhumaine, technology dependant world where one marginally sain person can't even delude himself enough to believe that one person can make a differance as nameless, faceless forces seem to conspire against my every hope and dream, leaving me spiritually ravaged and consigned to work at the drive-in window at Wendy's?"
A: Internet Pr0n?
You'll see people start paying for content, when distributers start pricing it correctly. Sometimes I only visit a site once, maybe twice. Do I want to buy a 20-50 dollar a month subscription to get the article I'm interested in? Obviously not.
However, I would be willing to make a 50 or 75 cent investment in a good article or two. Micropayments could be a huge boon to the net. Paypal or Visa or Mastercard ought to get their act(s) together and make it happen already
About the only way that I think I would happily toss down a monthly $fee for online content would be to have the content shipped to me on a (monthly, quarterly, whatever) basis on cd as well as the access.
;)
HTML is small, dynamic content can be shoe-horned into static, and you can always look back on the good old days (think LWN on cd. or Wikipedia, relive your first p0st over and over again on Slashdot the 99-01 collection, whatever).
I think I would even pay a premium for such as service as well (20 bucks a year for online access, or, 40 and we ship you a quarterly cd as well!)
Myself, I see the net being a little too ephemeral to be chucking down cash for something you will never get to touch or keep a library of for your own use.
My 2 cents. Now, time to go read the article!
As with most television programming, most web content, while valuable, would not be bought if it were sold, because the perceived value is not worth the hassle of all those little payments. But if you have a concentrated source of high-value stuff and offer it on decent terms, you will have subscribers and I believe you can make it self-sustaining and even profitable.
For the rest of us, a gift culture just works better because you don't have to hassle with all that bookkeeping and settling-up, and if ad.s allow us to break even more often than not then I can stand it. Enduring the advertising is less painful than writing a thousand checks/month or having to fill in a payment form every ten seconds.
Have these guys never seen a good sized news stand? Juggs next to Newsweek. I am sure that the publishers of Juggs are well aware that they are displayed next to a second-rate mag like Newsweek.
In a year no one will even remember this guy's tale to care about his failed business.
Every expensive product in human history that faced cheaper (free is just the extreme) competition has at one point resorted to insulting their customers by calling them cheapos. "Freeloader Mentality" is a very hollow word that describes the simple fact that people make many of their economic decisions in a surprisingly economic way: As long as major news sites are free (as in beer), people won't pay for yet another one that charges them. It's that simple and ist's called competition.Get used to it.
It won't work with news - blogs have become much faster and more accurate than any on-line news services. It won't work with any kind of photographs or reviews - there will always be oddballs who decide to provide comparable content for free or with only banner advertisment. And as long as people have the choice, I don't see them willingly switching to services they have to pay for.
you can find this quote here, it appears to me that it is written by RMS.
Will Internet Users Pay for Content?
One Word: No.
I know its music, but apple gets poeple to pay for music. Wall street journal gets people to pay for there services as does bloomberg. Information is valuable. There is no easy way to pay for web pages if you want a little at a time.
Its like newspapers. In boston we have a "Free" daily paper (The Metro) its small but has the days news. The "pay" Boston Globe is much bigger with more depth.
There is a place for both.
From the book of Beatles "The best things in life are free."
That is totally out of context. So sue me. RIAA if you are listening, I didn't mean that litterally.
He used the word "monetized". It's doomed to fail.
Seriously, though -- he compared old magazines to old movies, noting that Hollywood makes a substantial portion of its money from its old catalog, and thinks he can do the same with magazines. Doesn't he notice that there's a bit fo a difference between movies (entertainment) and magazines (news)? News ain't evergreen, my friend.
goats.com: better than
I have to disagree with you. The reason is people will pay for content if it's worth it. People pay for dating and meeting sites all the time, and I heard ESPN Insider does well. The problem is people don't want subscriptions. If I see an article I want to read, then I should be able to buy that article, and not a months worth for $9.95 or whatever. In the long run people will pay for quality sites, that are well run, well moderated, and deliver interesting content.
and people generally don't pay. We tried it as a last resort before shutting our site down awhile ago. The only way that worked for us to make money was to syndicate our content onto other web sites. We did pretty good business until the .com bust killed that. Another avenue we pursued was advertising but we didn't have many people on staff and chasing ad dollars (at the time anyways) was a full-time salesman's job. We were all techies. Needless to say, we didn't get many ad contracts. We also tried joining "networks" (think Home and Garden "Channel" on something like MSN)and that was a nightmare. Obviously, we weren't very good businessmen either but it was fun for awhile. People just don't expect to pay on the internet, there's simply too much free stuff.
i hand over money to my ISP and in return i get to view all these web pages , download movies/mp3's/chat/im
We USED to get all TV for free.
THEN we paid for cable - but that was ok because we got out boobs, 4 letter words, and gore... commercial free.
NOW we pay MORE for cable, get twice the commercials, and have to watch edited versions of many movies.
Go figure.
So to those who say we will never pay for content on the net... what are you watching tonight, and how much are you paying again?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I don't know about everyone else, but I will stick to whatever free content I can get ahold of.
Not unless I need very specific, proprietary content, would I ever pay to skim most of the web's nonsense. This includes general forum sites, news, link sites, even slashdot. Though entertaining, most of it is not worth paying for. Not when there is someone providing it for free.
Again, the price must be right. 30 a year is a decent price for most websites and if they could do it even cheaper, it would be even better. For online versions of Time, of course you'd give that to print subscribers, but how about a online version that is cheaper to subscribe to then the dead tree version? This would work great for Time and other print magazines. Less paper going out (lots would take the digital version) and less trees getting killed.
If it's already an online venture (Slashdot, Pocket PC Thoughts) use value adds to push it. Specifically, for wireless users, have a mobile site customoized for the PDA screen. PPC Thoughts does this....the free mobile site does not do near as much as the pay site and I LOVE being able to reply to forums on the PDA. Also, try to work deals with your advertisers to get a coupon or something to give the subscriber. PPC Thoughts also did this with Vaja. There are other things like customizing your online experience further than possible with the free site and lots of things that make reading PPC Thoughts easier to read. Subscriber giveaways are a bonus to do too especially if the sites operators can get those for free. Also, ad blocking is a excellent value add for subscribing. Point is, as Slashdot and several other geek oriented sites have proved, it is possible to make enough to stay alive and even a little above that. But will Joe Six-Pack pay? Make the content compelling and unusual (I WON'T pay for world news) and people will pay. Have a free version available and that will entice them to subscribe.
Gorkman
If you're going to charge people for online only content, it's really got to be more that just what's available in print. Slashdot is not available in print and it is more than just news, it's an experience of discussion with a great deal of other like-minded people. I am part of a group that runs a successful non-porn (well maybe some) pay website. In talking to our members, the main reason people subscribe to our site and keep renewing their subscriptions is the experience, not just the content. The experience being the activity in the various message forms, the ability to rate and comment on every piece of content, the ability to parametrically search and access all content for the past 6 years (online publicaitons rarely offer that), the ability to see who's currently online, etc.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but it illustrates the point that you really can't charge for *just* content presented in the same way as print. I don't believe Salon executed successfully using this model, and I can't see how anyone else could either.
Just my 2 cents ...
Personally, I think in the next 5 years we'll see a switch from paying for access and free content to free access, or incredibly CHEAP access and paid content.
We built a site for the New York Review of Books years ago with an online subscription model and it's been very successful.
The key -- that some folk seem to miss -- is that you need content that people are willing to pay to access. All too often the content provided by a subscription site isn't worth the price even if it was free. It also helps if your publication's demographic actually has money.
The problem with this model is that when the users start paying, the users start demanding. They demand better content and more of it. When the content is free nobody cares if it is excellent or crap, and they have no room to complain. Anyone remember The ROMP? They kept calling their user base free-loading wusses. Users liked their content, so they obliged. After about a month they had to call the entire operation quits because they simply could not keep their new flash content out on their release schedule, and it all collapsed around them. All that's left is the hype of a movie called "When Booty Calls" that is pretty much vaporware.
Micropayments in this system we have WILL NOT WORK. Instead, we need a Xanadu type system where everybody's contents are self-assesed and charged appropiately by the micropayment counter.
.001c - but it's something). If slash and related sites didnt have us users, they'd be a nothing. The best system is where high-quality posters should have free subscriptions, and lowish ones pay.
By then, if you're juat a consumer, you pay. However, if you actually give something back, you get too. Make enough content, and you make money. Pictre the Xanadu system as a cab fare the rapidly flings back and forth.
Even with micropayments/subscription, my content on Slashdot and tech related sites is worth money (probably
It's like television, which survives off ads. The only problem is we've learned that advertising on the net doesn't work very well. I think with clever, amusing, and less annoying ads, that could change. Also, I think most people base the success of an ad on the number of click-throughs; this is not logical, especially if you have an ad similar in nature to a print ad, where a click-through is not necessary to gain your interest in the product/service.
The Internet is still pretty young, and the Web is even younger. In time, hopefully, things will flesh out and new business models will emerge. I think for now, though, the industry is still trying to recover from the burst tech bubble.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
But I won't give my credit card number to a thousand different sites. I will not subscribe to a bunch of sites (recurring payments or minimum payments greater than what I'll use on my visit), and I will not enter my personal information over and over and over again. And when it comes to downloadable books, software and music, I want that content downloadable forever, or the deal's off.
Until there's a standard for centralized payments (it's fine if there are multiple payment centers, so long as they all speak the same protocol), I'm going to use Google to hunt for alternate sites for information and entertainment.
Until downloadable content is as loss-proof as a book or a CD (meaning my library doesn't go away if a hard drive goes away without a backup or I run out of space and have to kill a folder of tunes I won't listen to for a few months), it doesn't feel like you actually own anything. If you have a permanent account with permanent access, you feel like you've purchased something, and it feels like your money's afforded you a little certainty. If you only get one, two or three downloads or a 30-day cap and then you're screwed, it's just as fulfilling (and often less trouble) for others to load up bittorrent and grab a few movies and CD images. The whole download-limited purchase thing seems really short-sighted.
Through my college library, I already have access to several third party content providers. Using the college logon from any computer, I can access hundreds of newspapers, thousands of magazines, and a shitload of other reports and periodicles. All of these are available within days of publication, in full searchable text. The costs in this case are included within the colleges tuition, but many of these same services can be accessed through my local library's services as well. Will their service be able to compete with the comprehensive services of even a public library?
pay for something on the internet? Are you mad. just download it from Kazza
Not so much copy as backup. If I pay for information from the web I want a guaranty that it will not disappear later on when I need it. The only way I be can sure is by making a local backup.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Oh wait this isn't a poll? OK thenmy answer is no.
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
nt he said
...which I wish I could take credit for :)
I heard a guy speak about this a while ago. He is CEO for a large Australian portal site, and like all portals, is struggling to make money. His comment was that, as a general rule, people are more likely to pay for content that is user created, rather than content that someone else creates - bad news for traditional news sites!
Some examples: Hotmail premium services, dating sites, forums (see EZBoard), and yes, even slashdot.
Sure, most of those examples have many more people not paying, but the key thing is they are all getting people to pay money. Think about sites you pay for or might be tempted to pay for...
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I pay for the content of two websites.
One is a job search site where I pick up new contracts to keep the family fed and the other is a fantasy football site. Both provide information that is very useful and can't be found elsewhere. Or I don't have the time to do the research on my own.
- Same or similar, comparable, slightly lower quality content cannot be available elsewhere for free
- They have a meaningful value proposition (people will feel like they're getting what they're paying for)
- The economy (and their current income level) allows them to have the disposable income for it...as most online content is not vital to have
A prime example (although it's not "online") is HBO. I pay an extra $10/month for it because its content is (imho) that much better than the rest of what TV has to offer. If an online service can get people to feel the same way (that their content is that much better than the rest of what the Internet has to offer) no doubt people will pay.does this need an argument?
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Yes, they will when they have to. When they start logging on to sites that just arn't there anymore.
;-).
Now, I'm not going to pay for general news today. I can get it at the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, LA Times etc. etc. etc. I'd pay if they all dissapeared, but they won't.
NYTimes is profitable. The Washington Post's website is it's only real national edition and too strategically important. Others are similarly situated almost all are heading towards profitability. The WSJ is pay only and profitable. Salon is... well it just doesn't die
But, you know what, I've put some bucks into political blogs I read to keep them moderately healthy. I'd hate to see them go and -- more importantly -- I'd pay a moderate fee if they went pay-per-view.
The New Republic went mostly pay-per-view a couple months back. It gave me the little push I needed to subscribe to the deadtree version, which gives access to articles online.
And I subscribe to ArsTech's forums, since I habitate there fairly often and I want to help keep that site alive.
Finally, I work at a company that publishes $1,000/year newsletters via the internet. (Granted its PDF, not HTML) It content and people certainly pay, even if it isn't the general public.
Yes, I'm ahead of the curve. I'm obviously willing to pay for pulp-based content as well, which many aren't even willing to do.
For those stuck in 2001, believing you are the only one who "get's it" that the 90s were irrational exuberence and everything dotcom was dumb: Get off your high horse. Everyone knows, even those in business and things are improving. Profits are being squeezed out--even in the crappy economic times.
The internet is just a different way to transmit information. There is nothing inherent about it that means people won't pay for entertainment and valuable information there.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
There are two general types of content that could be on the web: highly specialized content, and rather generic content. The highly specialized content (wsj analysis, medical papers, etc.) can be sold on the internet because users know there's no other place to get it for free. For the generic content, there are tons of websites that are willing to provide free content just so they have visitors. As long as someone is willing to undersell on content, it will remain free.
Free news sites are an understandable byproduct of this competition. Any news company could charge for access; after all, the information does take research and money to compile. But, since there are many news sites, and they're all competing for hits, they will continue to provide content for free as long as they can. Once you start charging, you'd better have a lot more to offer than just headlines and commentary.
No one calls people cheap for expecting to make local telephone calls for free (after paying for the phone line). No one calls people cheap for expecting to use their cable line for free (after paying for the cable line). So why is the internet different, after you've paid for the internet connection? What's so cheap about expecting to be able to use something that you've paid a pretty hefty amount for (more than cable and phone lines, in fact).
I'm paying for my computer, electricity, my dsl connection and my isp account.
What more do they want from me?
... only a small proportion will pay.
The Internet is vast, everything is out there for free somewhere. Those with less time on there hands, or less enthusiam for finding it will pay a fee... everybody else will lumber on regardless.
For example: I have broadband internet access. For the same price, I could buy subscriptions to a couple of magazines. It's irrelevant for me that technically, I just pay for bandwidth etc. It's the content that interests me and makes it worth the price...
I think that's one of the reasons it is difficult to get readers to pay for content. It's like saying: "if you pay this price, you get access to a lot of information" and then charging them again for it...
I regularly post to Slashdot. I am essentially a micro-content provider to Slashdot. I have posted over 300 comments, many of them high Karma scorers. If I made, say, one cent per Karma point, then I would be about 3 dollars better off by now! Woohoo!"
Maybe a site like Slashdot could charge "micropayments" but rebate to it's users that have high moderation. This may have an effect on eliminating troll posts and encourage well thought out responses.
I pride myself in the high moderation I get here & substantial page views/responses I get elsewhere. I mainly use this site & other Mac Chat/Forums sites as a way to "micro-advertise" my website & my eBay auctions. I figure, if people think I say something interesting I must be selling something interesting ;)
Another take: If you actually sell something on eBay OR leave feedback for a transaction you are rebated or awarded a micropayment. This way, even eBay could CHARGE for content. Buy - you are deducted a micropayment - leave feedback - awarded/rebated a micropayment
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Remember when the IN SOVIET RUSSIA troll wasn't played out? Ahhhhhh, the good old days.
BTW, whoever got ahead in business by abusing potential customers ?
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
So I took a look around the KeepMedia site. It seems you get access to ALL the magazines available for a pretty low price. And there's a huge list of magazines there.
I drilled a little deeper and notices, well, 90% of these magazines I have no interest in reading. There's a handful of titles that look pretty good but there's some serious gaps ... I didn't see enough newspapers or tech magazines that I'd like to see.
Finally, it dawned on me, this is not a good idea for me. I seriously doubt these articles have a lot of the PICTURES. It's not going to be as robust as a magazine. Lastly, what's the point of this, when I can just go to the library (as I do, maybe once a week) and just peruse the magazines there? Better selection, actual print copies.
This site basically is running against the problems with eBooks. In addition to paid content, we have the problems of, do people really want to read magazine-length content on a screen? Do people want portability? Do people really want to "own" content that's only online? At least these people got the price point right. But I think they're gonna have to think about some of these other issues, too.
It just seems like, when your business model is competing against the physical library, you got a hard road ahead of you...
The reason why I won't Pay online is simple. Most dot com sites don't take good enough precautions to keep their customer's info secure. To offer better deals, they try to minimize costs as much as they can and your information sits in their database ready to be hacked or sold by some disgruntled employee or company going bust...
So I would only pay if there is a centralized (gotta be very secure) payment mechanism which lets me pay for it on any dot com website and before any payments are approved, allows me to log-in to the centralized site and approve the individual transactions....
I think you were going for
"...ooooh short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but..." -Reverend Lovejoy
To understand recursion,
you must first understand recursion.
The Wall Street Journal is an excellent example of a site that has done well online. One of the reasons being that they were very clear with their subscription model - one subscription for the print edition - another subscription for the online edition. The best deal is if you have a student subscription, you get both the print and online editions for one very reasonable price.
The internet makes it easy to commoditize information, those who are successful are able to differentiate their content (can't get it anywhere else - users willing to pay the premium). It has certainly worked for technical/medical journals, whether or not it will work for pop-culture magazines, we'll have to see.
The iTune Music Store isn't a good comparison - people aren't paying extra to access the site - but rather buying music from the site, the subscription based music sites haven't fared as well.
People are willing to pay for content, but they won't be willing to do it more than a few times. Think about all of the "register to view" websites. There are thousands of them now and I personally find it highly annoying to click a link in an article, be taken to another site, and learn that I have to create another godforsaken login just to view one article. This will increase that level of annoyance from just having to create an ID to include having to pay $5 just to view one article on a site I'll probably never go to again.
I've been using Yahoo BillPay for over a year now at $7 a month, and I'd never, EVER go back to writing checks and mailing bills. In fact, I visit a mailbox once every 3 months because I now handle all business and correspondence online. I still have all these old 34 cent stamps to which I have to add a sheaf of 1 cent stamps in order to mail anything.
I also pay extra for Usenet access from a company that is dedicated to it. Gotta have those complete multi-part binaries, don't ya know. :) At least until the RIAA eventually goes there. :(
And I pay a little extra for an email/web space combo.
So I, personally, have no problem paying for services even thought I'm skeptical about paying for content. That's why I don't complain about advertising unless a page gives me more than one popup at a time. That's like two commercials playing at the same time on TV.
--- Ban humanity.
In a sense we are already paying for online content in the form of banner ads, text ads, popups, popunders, "day passes", "free registrations", and the like.
I think subscription and micropayments all come down to the convenience of making the payment.
The main reason for me not purchasing everything online is the hassle of entering a credit card, paying the taxes and the shipping, etc.
Services like PayPal are the first step to making this a lot easier. I wonder how it would be if there was some sort of Internet currency that was completely partial to physical money. Perhaps some could be bought as credits or something. Then you have a deposit of online money that you can freely waste without it having any further effect on your real-life budget.
Don't know, just an idea... Of course, there would be all sorts of fun discounts for buying internet services with internet money, etc.
Weeeeeeeee.....
- shazow
I pay for content online, specifically music, and not iTunes. It's LAUNCHcast plus, provided by Yahoo. It's essentially a radio station, minus the commercials with the benefit that I specify what type of music comes on. There is a free version, which I used for awhile, but the paid version adds the following benefits (in reverse order of importance to me):
1) Access to more content
2) No commercials
3) Higher quality music streams
I don't get to keep a hardcopy of the music, but for me it's worth it because:
1) It introduces me to new music based on my preferences (which I will buy CDs for if I like)
2) I can listen to it from anywhere that has a net connection
3) It is CONVENIENT. I don't have to decide what I want to listen to (although I can specify various 'moods'), and it takes up NO space on my harddrive.
I highly recommend it. I liked it so much I subscribed my little sister. I don't know if a similar model would work for other forms of media, but these guys nailed it in the music subscription as far as I'm concerned.
About a week ago i read an article on Wired about a site called RedPaper.com which allows freelance writers to publish thier work online for others to buy. It is an interesting test to the theory of users buying and selling media online. The site is about three weeks old (I think) and has quite a few members. It will be interesting to see if the idea takes off.
This guy is a self-confessed troll. Look at his posting history:
Item A
Item B
He's just whoring for karma.
While it's easy to find current news on the Web, finding old news (useful to put current stories in context) is almost impossible. Due to storage limits, most information providers don't keep a lot of old information. Yet, it's exactly this "old" information that is so useful in research. I, for one, would be glad to pay $5/month for a useable archive of information.
The question now is: does the KeepMedia content qualify as a useable archive of information? The magazines they have at the moment are actually promising. Aside from the trade journals (a great source of information for activists and other investigative types), there are some interesting magazines, including Mother Jones, one of the better muckraking magazines in the U.S.
I think I'll try the 7 day trial and see how much value I derive from what's available. If I wind up with the equivalent of 4-5 magazine subscriptions plus a library's worth of back issues of other material, this could be a bargain.
But I won't give my credit card number to a thousand different sites...
Until there's a standard for centralized payments
Happy to oblige... here's your answer.
in a word, NO
Matt D
-= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
A few days back, there was an interruption of the stream from radio.wazee. I realized how much I listen to their content and how much I would miss it if it were gone. I was afraid they had sunk into the web oblivion and was relieved when they stream was working the next day. (Note: Both the winamp and wmp streams were down...did not check the rma stream, not that I would care if it was up down or sideways.) Now that I am working, and they have a Paypal donation option, I am going to start contributing. No commercials, music I like 24/7, as the kids say these days, and no special equipment besides my pre-exiting computer and broadband if you want decent quality gives me a warm fuzzy.
You want people to pay? Give them a reason to pay and make it easy.
1) Good content people enjoy that is worth paying for.
2) A reason my money is needed, aka I do not want to pay for something paperless that also has adds.
3) Make is simple for me to do. I already have a Paypal account, however secure/trustworthy it is.
It does not hurt that they are asking for a donation, instead of charging people for content.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
For answer to above question, please review the post before this one... ;)
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
It seems like a reasonably good service idea. And the current terms are largely reasonable. There's only one I object to:
The terms of service are posted on a web page. They can change it whenever they feel like it, and don't need to notify the customer. But you are bound by whatever they change the terms to.
I won't be signing up. I would really need to have the service before I would agree to those terms.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I like Borders bookstores, but this venture wouldn't get my investment money.
One thing that struck us is that the movie business (gets) two-thirds of their money from their archives, while magazines are getting zero. That's a huge pool of content that's not monetized at all.
By "archives" here does he mean DVDs, videotapes? I would think so, if it accounts for a 2/3 of revenue. I think there's a fundamental distinction here, in that a DVD has the advantages of rentability, playback on the medium of your choice, and reusability, driven by Hollywood's well-oiled publicity machinery. As such, it can command relatively high prices. A magazine archive strikes me as, well, old magazines. Why does Borders presume that the magazine industry would not have thought of the idea that they could keep selling their magazines? Certainly the viability of that doesn't depend on his "platform", and to a large extent the market has already spoken on this by the (nonexistent) profits old magazines can generate.
Co-branding is an interesting business activity, because some of the great success stories in business are co-branding models. One specific example is when Dryers Ice Cream and Starbucks got together and made their Java Chip ice cream. It became the best-selling ice cream in the world.
Nice buzzword, but I'm not sure how the example he cites has any relevance to the business model he's selling. Dryers and Starbucks worked together to develop a new product; what he's talking about seems to be just another portal.
We've had a lot of meetings with them--extremely positive meetings--and I'm sure they'll come into the platform in short order.
Okay, what is this "platform"? I think I can substitute "web server" everywhere you're using the term "platform" and it'll mean the same thing. I'm not seeing any mention of any competitive differentators in this interview.
The more content that moves behind the pay wall, the more willing people will be to pay.
This is just bad logic. How does B follow from A here? In fact, I'd suggest the opposite, that this basically is just a bait-and-switch model applied to the internet. Personally, I'll go to the sites which give me useful content as a baseline.
Another was an execution error: They mixed really high-quality content with Joe's dissertation on something. And strongly branded publishers don't like to see their content next to second-rate content.
Hmm... oddly, I usually find Slashdot at a filter of 5 considerably better than the "strongly branded publishers". Or moreso, everything2. I must prefer "second-rate content".
They become too focused on making money in the short term, like paid inclusion does. I'm a fanatic about that--I just think that's a horrible thing. If you're telling people that you're paid to do this, like Google does when it separates its paid links from the rest, that's fine. That's good business. If you're not telling people, however, it just seems disingenuous, and it is certainly no way to build a brand.
Okay, so your platform is going to have 140 magazines you represent, from whom you receive your revenue, and you'll offer the user a choice of... those 140 links. Sounds like paid inclusion to me.
In essence, I think Borders should be looking for revenue not in co-branding between him and other word shops, but co-branding between himself and the user. That's what, IMHO, an internet user is most likely to pay for; a system that tailors itself to him, and which he is a participant in, a la Amazon, eBay or participatory sites like this very one. The primary thing the internet distribution channel can give the user is time, in speed of accessibility and speed of finding relevant content. The second thing is variety, which the range of, for example, on-line gaming can offer that 140 channels of old magazine content cannot. I'd suggest he start there with his business model.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
gas + water + electricity + trash removal for me adds up to a total of about $80 USD a month. CableTV+roadrunner has increased to just under $100!! Thats pretty much the only option for me in my area unless I go with a crappy dialup. I decided to just use the internet connection at my parents house or at work (where I'm at now) when I need something because I just can't afford it anymore, and I've turned in my modem last weekend. I'm already going through withdrawal, but just like my other habit (cigarrettes), the cost is what is killing me, not the habit itself.
Your post got me thinking. I don't subscribe to Slashdot either, but there's a good chance I will if I can manage to land a decent full-time job (stupid economy). The thought went through my head: I'd miss out on the Think Geek ads if I subscribed. Granted, they're not enjoyable for their own sake like some Volkswagen ads, but I like to be informed of the latest offerings at Think Geek, and I'd rather it not come in the form of email spam.
It seems like some sort of ad preferences system would be a win-win situation. Companies would target consumers they knew for sure were interested in their type of product, and readers would get ads that are actually relevant. It could be as simple as an extra preferences pane:
I'm into:
[ ] Fishing
[ ] Music Software
[ ] Server Software
[ ] Server Hardware
whatever, the list might be really long. You could also have something like:
I'm receptive to ads from:
[ ] Think Geek
[ ] Amazon
[ ] Apple
[ ] Doubleclick
etc.
Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a single national database that all companies could refer to, so I'd stop getting stuff about refinancing my mortgage. Of course, there could be privacy issues - watch the current administration send everyone who checked "I'm into anarchy" off to Cuba...
c-hack.com |
I do pay for some content.
I have some subscriptions to some pay sites.
But generally I don't because they overprice.
I don't want several bill payments running through my credit card.
Online subscriptions are too expensive, I only want to pay a few dollars a year. It should be easy and secure to pay. Automatically renewing subscriptions aren't ideal.
It has to offer something better, and it should prove that it is better.
Online prices should be cheaper then a comperable dead tree subscription, even if they offer additional services.
I didn't realize so many people had porn subscriptions.
Honk if you're horny.
Just not the content that most deliver. I can't stand sites that you pay for that give you a tiny screen with crappy compression or sound that cuts out every time you start dloading an iso.
I think it funny that the big media providers can't play nice with the television makers and put built in decoders on TVs. Yeah I'd pay ten bucks extra to watch Star Wars on demand, yeah, I'd pay to play for decent content on video games. Nothing like Starwars Galxies where I have to pay 15/mo. just for the privledge of playing my game that I already purchased for 50.
The problem is not that content is not available. THe problem is that the method of deliver is still sloppy and unprofessional or too expensive to maintain. It is STILL easier to go to BlockBuster and rent. It is STLL easier to put a lan party together, and often more fun. The only thing that was worthwhile, the radio broadcasters sucked the life out of (internet broadcasters). most of what you see these days (not all, mind you) are simply sites asking for money out of goodwill. While that might work for private, small and community-like ventures penny arcade, that doesn't work for corporate America.
TIMEWarner/AOL, NYT, Bloomberg, I will pay for content! Make it as easy as the TV, but make it better quality, and you'll make a fortune. People my age don't watch TV anymore. The net is my TV.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Users will pay for content when other users stop providing it for free.
When companies have to compete with users who will provide information for free, (at around the same quality) they'll never be in a position to charge for it.
The gentleman I responded to was indeed calling net users cheap, just for expecting things free. I don't dispute that some users will pay for some content (the HBO analogy is a good one) -- although it's hardly a new idea. Many, many web sites already require payment for full use.
But when I pay $40 a month for internet access, I'm hardly cheap for expecting most basic content free. No one thinks you're cheap if you just order a normal cable package, and pass on all the specialty stuff.
I will not pay for online content. Ok, so it's a big generalisation, but... I used to get a whole bunch of united media syndicated comics mailed to me each day. Then they started charging for any more than one, so now it's just dilbert. Zagat used to be my online restaurant finder of choice and then they started charging so I just use another one.
If the service wasn't there, I wouldn't use it. I believe the net is about people creating content because they get benefit and people consuming the content because it's there, if there is a business model that allows the content creator to make a buck then more luck to em, but I don't care about them, it is their problem and I won't be the one to open a billing relationship with them cause none of that stuff is "essential" enough in my life to make me pay money.
This is the problem with most of these business models they just don't offer enough value to justify a price. Next player.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
The Internet is the beginning of a global community and there's no good evidence to support the that putting another price tag on it will improve it. I say another price tag, because like the post above mentions, the Internet is already paid for.
If you look through history with an eye to literature, you find that much of the greatest writing know to man was put down for reasons other than the exchange of coins. Just because it doesn't support your feelings of entitlement, you can't just jump to the conclusion that non-commercially produced material is inferior. You're arguing against the heritage of humanity if you take that position.
What I find so shocking is not that people won't pay. I can tolerate that despite the fact that my own works get ripped off. What I can't stand is when the US Congress passes an amendment like they did to the Net Act that equates all exchanges where anything of value is recieved in return with commerce. This is unbelieveable. By this logic, all sex is prostitution. How can America have gotten to this point? The greed is so insane it's impossible to conceive of love.
The first thing that needs to be done is to get micropayments sorted out once and for all. Noone wants to pay a monthly subscription, they want to pay for what they actually use, and they'll probably not know their usage ahead of time. Of course, there's nothing to stop sites still offering cheaper subscription services for those who like that sort of thing.
However, what will really make this work is to find some way to centralize this so that a person only has to pay a single organisation and will get some kind of bill, just like with the telephone system.
The ultimate solution would be to somehow tie it into ISPs, so that the ISP is charged for the micropayments and then passes this cost onto the customer as part of their service. ISPs could bundle a certain amount of "free" service charges with their monthly fee and charge users for anything they use in excess of that, of course giving the customer some way to monitor their expenditure.
People are paying their ISPs already, so they'll probably be less unhappy to pay them a little extra especially if they get some free credit to try before they buy. The problem is setting up the infra-structure for this. It would involve some kind of organisation which runs the system and then have sites which want to make use of it tie into them to charge the micropayments to the ISP or the user directly depending on how the user is subscribed. The user could then get a monthly statement and be able to query anything they don't agree with just like they can with a credit card statement.
This is likely to never happen, since it requires too much cooperation. If it was to happen in any form we'd end up with lots of different micropayment providers all of which are supported by different sites, so everyone would have to have an account with all of them. I can dream, though! :)
people will pay for content as soon as they are given content that is worth paying for. doesn't matter if its music, or news , or the britney spears lesbian goat pr0n mpeg. we will pay for it if we think its worth it (and if we are SURE we can't get it for free somewhere else)
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
You're missing his point (I think). The content here *is not* subscriber supported. The amout that /. takes in from subscribers vs M$ et al. has to be a drop in the bucket. If slash got rid of ads, they would probibly fold. The point is, you can't float a dot com on subscribers alone.
Take newspapers: the price of the paper to the consumer is trivial. Many papers don't even charge any more. They are supported by ad money.
On a different note, doesn't it seem like the Microsoft bunch and hangers-on spend A LOT more ad money here than Open Source?
Disclamer: I feel sick this morning so I tend to ramble...
You know what needs to happen? No? Well I'll tell you. Remember when to get a cell phone you had to go to the cell phone company (I know they aren't "cell" phones they are "wireless", stay with me) and you would sit down with a guy, he would explain everything from how the phone's work to how they would be billing you. Then you would fill out an application, they would do a credit check on you, you would pay a deposit based on your credit, blah blah blah. Any way that process was VERY long and very complicated. Lots of people that would have bought a cell got turned down and didn't buy because of this process. Now a days that have pre payed services like Virgin and a couple others, where you go and buy little credit card looking things and charge up your phone. These cards are everywhere and you can pay in cash. Who needs credit and a long drawn out process now? No one, everyone from jr. high kids to execs to drug dealers can get one and pay in cash without having to worry about all the hassle and they can remain anonymous. This is exactly what needs to happen with the internet. Pay Pal or another big online pay site (is there another one?) needs to come out with a credit card type pre pay system that you can use to pay for whatever you want online, ebay, pron, your friend Bob, whatever. Just wait, this will happen. Actualy some exec is going to read this post and steal the idea, fuck I should probably patent it now and liscence the tech..... anyway, before I get off on a whole new tangent, those are my two pennys...
One thing that struck us is that the movie business gets two-thirds of their money from their archives, while magazines are getting zero
This is exactly the sort of factually incorrect statement that I'd expect from the person behind Webvan!
From the top of my head Factiva, Proquest, Ebsco, Lexis Nexis, HW Wilson, Gale, Diolog, NYT Syndication....are all services that take publishers' content, aggregate it and then sell it on. They pay very good money for this content and the site that I run makes a significant proportion of its income from these services. So factually Louis Borders is wrong, which makes you wonder just how many other things are wrong in his business plan.
The fundamental difference between KeepMedia and the services I listed above is that all these big aggregators sell their services to business for seriously big sums of money. KeepMedia wants to sell to everyday Joes for very small amounts of money. To be successful they will require big volumes of subscribers. To get big volumes they must carry content that users feel is essential. While KeepMedia holds a couple of titles that I might pick up and browse I don't think that any of the information could be described as essential.
So back to the title - I give them six months!
There is an easy example. The Wall Steet Journal's website. They offer the WSJ and Barrons (the weekly magazine) for about $60 / year. They have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Why?
1) The content isn't available easily anywhere else. Unlike most newspapers the WSJ has different stuff.
2) The web version is a "good deal". Not having to print and deliver the physical paper saves Dow Jones a ton per subscription and they pass those saving on.
Further the subscription website acts as a gateway to other paid services (like using Dow Jones media database at $3 / article) which makes even more money. Again once you are used to WSJ it just seems natural to use their pay services.
IMHO the key to getting people to pay for content is a reasonable price for content which is genuinely unique to your site.
and we know linux users are freeloading file stealers.
Currently, I'm only paying for the use of two sites:
1) The Perl Journal, an extremely inexpensive highly technical magazine. Sure, it's a little thin compared to, say, Doctor Dobbs', but it's also a lot less money. I don't really see that as 'online content', because I read it offline as I would a 'real' magazine (although I don't print it out).
2) Geocaching.com premium membership. Here, I am paying for content. $30/yr gets you up to 10 daily downloads of queries off their database in a more complete format than is available to non-members (they basically get names and coordinates, subscribers get full descriptions, log data, etc.). It's also a community forum, and it felt worthwhile to subscribe.
So, would I pay to get at the back issues of magazines? I kind of doubt it. I currently don't even buy e-books for my Palm, I only download those that are free because they're past copyright or freely given by the author or publisher. That's limiting, but I'm not disappointed in the selection.
What really is the cost of a magazine anyway. I may be wrong, but my gut feeling is that subscription prices for paper magazines and newspapers basically cover the delivery, and maybe the dead trees. The content is paid for by the advertisers -- not quite the same model as TV, but close.
With e-content, there's no dead trees, and delivery is pretty darn cheap when bought in quantity. It's just that the ads have to be more obnoxious to bring in the corresponding revenue.
Obviously not everything in print is available online for free. So what kinds of 'zines might be worth paying for? I can only think of highly technical, specialized stuff like TPJ above, or whatever your profession might make worthwhile.
General news is waaaay to easy to snarf up on Google. Entertainment details are easily available on places such as IMDB or Amazon. Sports? Business data? Restaurant reviews? It's going to be hard to get someone to pay when someone else will provide it for the ad revenue alone. Unless web advertising crashes, I don't see this venture as being worthwhile.
Design for Use, not Construction!
My own dad thinks of "slow" (dial-up) Internet access the same way as he thinks of cable TV - something extra you pay for to do more with your computer. He thinks of broadband in the same terms as premium cable channels - it costs more, but you "get" more - music, video, etc (even though you can get that stuff over dial-up).
He would equate any paying for content above that as pay-per-view, which he won't touch.
I imagine his line of reasoning isn't unusual.
I'd pay for content delivered over the internet, but it has to be high quality (both in terms of content and production), and portable to other mediums as I see fit.
The problem with most internet content that you pay for is that they don't want you to move it to another platfrom (DVD, CD, etc), they want you to use your computer to consume it.
This throws out most written content, as sitting at the PC sucks for long reads. I could print it out myself I suppose, but even my 3si printer isn't that great for producing a viable formfactor book.
Video? I want it in my living room -- HTPC can do this, but I don't have one and HTPC and my current TV aren't a great combination for all the obvious user interface and form factor reasons. But paid video off the internet is DRM crippled, in a format not suitable for watching on TV, and then there's the whole nuisance of writing a DVD (which I can do from a hardware perspective, but not in an acceptable timeframe if MPEG encoding is required).
Audio? Closer, if it wasn't DRM'd and they'd get the whole catalog to me. But I don't see a commitment on the part of the industry to let me download music and then copy it to CDs, my MP3 player, etc without extra hassle.
I don't know what else they mean by content? Forums and stuff? I'm not paying to listen to slashdotters babble, but it's amusing enough to do for free.
I pay $4.95 a month for a ESPN.com subscription. I also paid the $24.95 for a yearly subscription to IGN.
So I pay about $85 a year for content. Why? Because it's content I actually find really useful. ESPN has a lot of really good articles in their insider pages, in aditition to things like linking articles to the local paper's websites of my favorite teams on sports stories. Not to mention their own extra content is written by the top guys in the business. IGN has a few nice videos once in a while, and some of their previews are really good. Not to mention with both of them, I got printed versions of ESPN the Magazine, and EGM.
The problem with paying for slashdot pages, or other micropayments, is that I'm getting anything special. I don't care to "help out a website". I want something I can't get anywhere else. If slashdot offered something like a private mirror for linked sites, distribtutions, debian/gentoo mirrors, etc. that's something to pay for. Hell, if even slashdot had their own articles to read to "subscribers only" I'd at least look to see what they were.
So to make a long story short...to anyone that has a website and wants subscription dollars. Make something worth paying for, and people will pay for it. Too bad only a few websites really grasped that idea.
I don't understand the rationale behind this man's thinking...nearly all current articles and news is available for free online...and who cares about old magazines/newspapers? Sure, I keep my old National Geographic's and Popular Science, but I would not pay for virtual copies of then which will be riddled with DRM, which I won't be able to copy or place on DVD-R for archival (probably)... Case in point: I find an intresting article in Scientific American which I decide to share with my friend...I simply give the magazine to my friend (let him borrow if for a few days), how would I be able to do that legally and without breaking the EULA that is no doubt going to be bound to this service. Sure, I have not seen the EULA yet, but I am sure (100% sure!) that I won't be able to let my friend borrow it...
http://chrono.posterous.com/
Most of the great art in history was created by artists who lived and died in obscure poverty (excluding a few wierd exceptions like Andy Warhol).
This has been tried. See common reference material like www.fuckedcompany.com
I'm an internet veteran, so much so that when I first saw a web-browser I thought "This really isn't as good as a bbs with fido-net" Eventualy I started using links (now lynx, eventualy netscape/mozilla). Point is, I've never spent a dime (out side of ebay, and hardware venders) online. And I sure as hell wont spend a dime on content. It pisses me off that I have to cough up 40 bucks a month for my cable modem.
Give up on making money off the internet, and start developing new useful inovations, insted of thinking of new ways to beat a dead horse.
-makoffee
See any BBC online site. I, along with every other BBC licence payer, fund that.
Would Borders be half as successful as a bookseller if it charged its customers just to enter its stores?
I frequent their stores because they generally have good technical material which I read while drinking sub-par coffee made by overinked and overpierced baristas.
Of ten books I review I might purchase one. In reality, my coffee purchases pay their rent.
/. and fark seem to have decent enough subscriber bases. salon does not. maybe salon is doing it wrong - maybe their stuff just isn't worth paying for? or maybe they're trying to sell content, whereas /. and fark sell enhancements to the free content.
i think people need to rethink what they're trying to sell online. you can't just start charging access to content. whatever it is that you produce online, someone else does it for free, guaranteed. there's no opinion on salon you can't find elsewhere.
a wiser move is to sell the -experience-, that is sell an improved experience. slashdot's subscriber early-viewing system is interesting - as is fark.com's unfiltered view of submitted links. they're selling an improvement on the basic stuff - but for the most part, the non-subscribing user still has plenty of solid content on which to get hooked.
(it might appear as if fark is charging access to content. however, as a link site, it's only charging you for the convenience of getting every possible link. 90% of those links that are any good are guaranteed to make fark's free page anyway)
salon tries to get you hooked by giving you half-articles, and thinly veiled promises for slightly upscale pr0n. this doesn't seem to work whatsoever. i tend to think it's more a function of how salon is trying to hook readers, rather than the quality of their commentary.
quite frankly, i don't believe people will just accept making, even 'micro-', payments to websites, just to read the base content. it goes against the ethic of the internet, and it flies in the face of consumer-friendly business (i can't return a crappy article i paid $0.25 to click).
you can't keep things to yourself in the internet age. what you can do, is provide (and charge for) a service that grants enriching features to that content. be it, advance access, a broader set of access, more direct access, preferred placement in discussion, preferred queuing for letter-to-the-editor response, etc.
(the RIAA could take a lesson here, as free mp3 rips will always circulate - but most users would just as soon pay $1/song to know they're getting a good quality rip from a fat bandwidth host, with no skips or modifications.)
of course, all this is wholly unnecessary for sites that can exist ably on merchandising alone (homestarrunner comes to mind).
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
People already pay for content on the 'net.
Its called porn, they seem to be doing quite well.
Some people are willing to pay for good content, ordered in a decent fashion, rather than use an alterative (such as thehun) where it can take a while to find anything that interests you.
The key it would seem to the porn industry is that there are a lot of people afraid to go out and buy Playboy, Penthouse etc. With the net they "feel" anonymous, and un-judged.
So what else are people afraid to be seen doing in public that can be done over the net?
Maybe medical stuff, though its kind of hard if it were prescription and such. But if a trusted pharmacy chain opened up an online store, selling things that people are scared to be seen buy in public (think genital related) maybe they could make good cash... then again that isn't really subscription based. But I am sure someone can think of something!
One example of online content that people pay for is the Wall Street Journal. I remember reading a news feature a couple of years ago about profitable companies on the Internet. The Wall Street Journal was one of the few online operations that were making money from the online business, and was one of the few non-porn sites to do so.
The question is this: can you provide high-quality, exclusive information that people are willing to pay for?
The Economist and Jane's Information Group are also examples of profitable online businesses.
Usually the content that profitable information-based sites provide includes information that people can use to make or save money, or otherwise has some direct and valuable application to their own business.
One other thing to note is the culture of information in a particular audience. The type of information that sites like Jane's and the WSJ provide is in areas where people are used to paying for extremely timely and hard-to-find information and analysis.
What, did this idiot actually discover a time machine?
Because he thinks its 1998!
Loser!
What's with webvan losers and high profile studies? Check out "Wired" this month.
Well I am paying for one site I use a lot, until I either leave the UK or get rid of my television - the BBC online pages are funded out of the UK TV licence fee.
People don't pay for software, they prefer open source. Why does anybody except to pay for internet content ? I am sure that someone will offer it for free anyway.
99% of the trash that's out there, isn't worth anything.
If the "content" has value, then sure! The problem is that most "providers" think television-quality content is worthy of compensation.
It isn't.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
In order for websites to make money off their content I think they are going to have to move to a "TV" based model or the Adult site model. ie, you pay a flat fee for access. Content sites join the service, get a portion of the 'fee' and advertising/merchandise on their side.
Personally, i'm not going to pay X dollars for one site, Y for another and so on. Most people already pay 50-100$ a month for cable/satelite access, I doubt many are willing to pay alot more for content on the net.
Give me a fixed price of X dollars a month which will buy me subscriptions to Y websites at a reasonable price and i'm in. Allow you to change your subscriptions monthly.
ex: .
5.99$ - 5 websites
9.99$ - 12 websites
15.99$ - 20 websites
. .
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
I thought Waldenbooks owned Borders.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Just for downloading ISO's of Linux and some
robot development code. I don't need content that's boring. What content will fly is if you have a subscription to a magazine and they have a free site
for subscribers... like Sky & Telescope, Discover,
Popular Mechanics, etc. I don't need to pay for rehashed fluff.
This is the trouble with the internet. In the late
80's the Internet was mostly for communication between schools, universites and governement agencies. Now some Billlion Dollar idiot thinks we want to pay for content. THE ANSWER IS NO!
Sorry, but it costs to create content. Even worse, it costs to deliver content (bandwidth, etc.).
./ isn't as a "contributor." I am a consumer of their product. I am consuming ./'s bits and bandwidth as I type. Most of all, I am consuming the large audience that slashdot as build up over the years for my little egotistical jaunts into cyberspace.
Most the people I know who've delivered quality content on the net rue their decision. Blogs aren't quality content.
Then there are the tons of reeders who put up put up pourly edited posts, and think, gosh look at this wonderful content I just contributed. I should get all that expensive, extremely time consuming work other people did for free. I don't buy the argument that you can measure the quality of content buy the volume of werds.
The way I see it. My participation in
The act of my typing out my pourly conceived and incomplete thoughts is an act of consumption. It is a tasty little ego trip I go through. Now lets wait and see if I get mod points...delicious little mod points.
I don't see it working. AOL is 'working,' except that consumers will create options. It's happened every time. Don't want cable? Go for satellite. Don't want satellite? Go for online broadcasts. Don't want either? Turn to another medium. In this case, though, i can see roll-your-own companies making a MAJOR profit.
My thought runs this way. Right now, i don't watch much tv. I pay for cable, but only if i can have access to interesting, relatively obscure channels. THe internet is different- it runs two-way. They want to have the content and the line, something equal to owning the phone AND tv companies at once. If they want to do it that way, underground networks are going to start. At least, i hope so. THe proliferation of mini-napsters seems to indicate that netfolk are willing to go to some length to establish the market that they want- in this case, free as in beer. Why should we pay for internet content when we can MAKE internet content?
This gives me optimism and hope, although i'm certainly interested in watching the regulatory issues play out. I feel good about the fact that we're finally reaching the point where it's easier to reach out and find like-minded individuals, and i feel fairly confident that backyard broadcasts will be un-quashable as the media moguls pick up steam. The RIAA is even having to learn that they can't stop every consumer. Who was it that said that there's no stopping an idea whose time has come? That's about how i feel about the net. Half the stuff on it might be useless- but i'm not going to see ads AND pay for content. AOL can keep there 1400 free hours (1400 free hours in the first month? Doesn't anybody sleep?) and the Comcast i use occasionally tries to reset my homepage, but i'll keep switching it back and writing them letters every time that they do. When they make it so that i can't, or so that i have to pay just to have a look at a page as a rule rather than an exception- I'm switching over to whatever's friendlier, no matter how much i have to learn to be able to do it.... just my tuppence in the jar. (The other $.98, i'm going to go give to the EFF.)
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Charging for content (that many others provide in the first place)! Next thing you know, they'll want to charge for putting air in your tires or a bottle of water!
Do you think the freeloader mentality on the Internet is ready for change?
This guy is back asswards. Normally to make money, you develop a product and service that people want and need and they are willing to pay an amount that you can profit from. The key is the PRODUCT. How or where it is sold is not the major factor, they are concerned with the product itself. This guys business plan is not based on consistant quaility products that people may or may not want, it is based on recurring monthly payments and viewing X online. I don't think it is as simple as open the door and they will come as the advantages are not clear. Considering it is the WWW, you can already get most of the same information somewhere else for free so why would people even bother? I don't think micropayments are a bad idea and will work where the content is "worth" it. The product has to sell via the payments, not the payments selling the product.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
OK, i'm a child of the 80's, so in my lifetime, cable tv has basically always been there. However, I can only imagine that in the 1970's, when someone was like:
Person 1: we'll give the people more tv, and they'll pay us $X a month for it
Person 2: But they already get lots of quality programming for free!
Person 1: But we'll make it worth their while. They'll like the luxury
Same thing with bottled water. People got it for "free" for years (millenia!) but then were totally ok with handing over money for the exact same thing (which always surprised me here where, in new york city, the tap water is excellent).
Well, just my $0.02
If there was some comercial content on the web which was worth paying for, then people will pay for it. Been there, done that, and I have the physical CDs to prove it. I buy audio CDs from garage bands based on free (and legal) mpegs which I find on the web. (Go forth and ask the Google about the Steam Powered Studio.)
My question is if there will ever be commercial content on the web which isn't so buried in advertisements, DRM, agendas, terms of use, and other muck that there is any "value" left for the customer to want to buy.
I don't think we're freeloaders, leaches, spoiled brats or whatever. We are not "eyeballs" to be bought and traded. We just don't want to be ripped off, and right now I find the pay content to cost more than its worth.
But I will never pay for these things. It's a matter of principle to me. If I don't find what I need here, someone will offer it somewhere else for free and I will go there. If the price for my obstinance is having pop-up adds or flashing ads in the middle of the page, so be it. No different than all the ads in any magazine you pick up or the commercials on TV. You don't have to click on them, you aren't forced to buy product so ignore it. If someone does, great but I've never bought anything that way and don't plan to in the future. The Internet is a wonderfully free resource, it should stay that way.
MMORPG Fan? Prove your worth!
I have had 2 successful dealing with making money on the internet.
The first was with my ex-employer. They provided online mail, administration tools and a portal page to schools across Australia, New Zealand, UK and Hong Kong. They also acted as a service provider for several hundred schools in Victoria, Australia.
They were able to make money because of a couple of key reasons. Firstly, schools have to be held far more accountable than the average home user. If a home user uses a product illegally, usually not too much is done. If a school does this, the Principal has the right to fire the IT manager (or whoever is in charge of software/hardware management), and most guys prefer not to lose their jobs over something like that.
Another key was that they kept all of the software online on their own (or leased) hardware. This meant that software was never installed on clients computers, making it easier to track who was on the system, how much they were using etc. This is a sucessful business with around 50 employees.
I also run my own webpage and message board which has around 100 paid members and 2 major sponsors at the moment. Membership costs $10. I consider this quite successful as I originally never wrote the site to make money. I also ran the site without Members for 2 1/2 years before we started accumulating Members. There were several keys to this. The first was having the right website and code development to handle what we wanted. Some of the big sites spend a LOT of money getting this to work, the first problem.
Once we had that, due to a very good standing with readers, most people were more than happy to pay $10 for the year to help support the website. It didn't matter to them that they could get the same information for free anyway, they just wanted to support the site and be considered official members. This has helped me to upgrade the site further (trophies for event days, upgrade the message board to vBulletin (coming real soon) and several other benefits.
The key is providing something that my readers want at a fair price, trying to look after their wants, and providing them with useful information. I also have a couple of sponsors but this discussion isn't about that.
Cheers
I pay around $100/mo. to DirecTV, because I get the HD channels, HBO, and Showtime. During the season, most of my watching is from the 6 networks that I pick up OTA on their digital feed. However, I pay for my entertainment, because I like to have news and random stuff to watch at random hours, even if I mostly use my Replay during the season.
If I had to pay FoxNews $5/mo, CNN $10/mo, HBO $20/mo, Showtime $20/mo, and HD Channels ($20/mo, or worst, $5 for ESPN, $5 for Discovery, and $10 for HDNet and HDNet movies), that would only be $75, but I probably wouldn't pay. Or, I'd only pay for ESPN during football season, etc.
Why? It's the nickle-and-diming, I have to think of each purchase. Instead, I chose to get DirecTV for some HD and general programming, and I can just add services. The $12+$11 for two premium packages is easy to add, but if I needed to send out two bills, I might drop them.
The Internet does need to follow the television model to some extent...
You can get "free" but crappy access (pre-digital OTA sucked, only 10% of people use it), like the free/cheap ISPs. You can get pay (normal channels) like basic cable/satellite (think broadband or premium ISP), and you should be able to get premium (Wall Street Journal, etc). In fact, I think that the problem isn't the cost, it's pulling out your credit card.
When I'm in a store, I have no problem pulling out cash for a $10 purchase or credit for a larger (but still sub $50 purchase, in the normal expenses range - everyone has a cap on the non-thinking payment). But on the Internet, I need to fish out my wallet, create an account, enter my information in, etc.
Microsoft tried it, but their program was annoying and intimidating.
When consumer content will work, will be when AOL starts with a model for their customers to buy premium Time Warner content, then adds more. However, they need to be structured like the cable premium levels.
i.e.:
$25 for basic AOL (plus your phone line) or $40 for broadband AOL - i.e. $40/mo covers the basic Internet service
$20 more for premium AOL (adds basic Time Warner content)
Then be able to add premium content for $5/mo. i.e. when an AOL user hits Slashdot, they can subscribe for $5/mo.
We're willing to pay more if it is centralized and trustworthy.
AOL is the most obvious, as they are the leader in the consumer Internet. However, each ISP should offer these programs.
Then pay-for content will work, but it has to be through my "Internet" bill, NOT through individual credit card transactions.
Micropayments are retarded, nobody wants to think "is this worth 10 cents." Think that wildly successful pay-per-view. Charge $3 - $5 one time (on your next "Internet bill" for specialty content. I can pay $3 for a movie ($5 for PPV), instead of (or in addition) to subscription services. That will work, it's not awkward, and it's not annoying.
Alex
people already pay to get the content. access to the net isn't free. ADSL, cable and modem access are all already paid for. the fact that this money doesn't reach the publishers is not the consumers problem.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Bite me..
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Selling content is easy. It just has to be the right content.
e-gold has offered a way, for years, along with several others. For years on slashdot I've offered a bit of free gold to go with (free) accounts. I've seen very few takers. The offer still stands.
I'm in the process of a meta-rant regarding Courtney Love's rant and my experience, which has been mixed, with Love and other artists who SAY "I want to get paid" but refuse to go through even minimal 5-minute efforts to get around the RIAA quintopoly's (yes, I made-up that word) stranglehold on their work. Right now they get a pittance for CDs, probably a better-not-great deal from Apple or that horrid buymusic.com site, and we all know they make their real money at concerts with those $50+ tickets I refuse to buy these days.
I want them all to put out a virtual guitar-case/tipjar with my favorite currency, which is seeing lots of international use. If they ever want ANY money from third-world music lovers with pirated CDs, you'd think they'd listen to me and try to "guilt" music lovers into a contribution -- which (if Courtney's math was right) might be better than the CD-pittance they would have gotten from the quintopoly for a legitimate sale of the same album. IMO. And yes, I have crass capitalistic greedy commercial interests in all this (in addition to wanting to make the world a slightly-better place).
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Just copy /. article content and watch people run!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Why in the world would someone pay for a magazine online? Can they take it to the bathroom with them? Can they take it to the beach? The hair salon?
Think about it. The internet is an AWESOME repository for free, highly technical, high quality, highly used information. It is not an entertainment venue. Now using TCP/IP to enable video, audio, and gaming applications is entertainment, and for that people are willing to pay: witness MMORPG's, digital song download services (iTunes), etc. But for reading scientific research papers, "how-to program in C++" guides, etc. the "Internet" (not the "entertainment internet") will always be something people aren't willing to pay for. What savings is it to me if I have to pay for it when I could just go grab a copy from the library to take all over the house and outdoors with me for the few weeks I want to be entertained and/or informed by it?
I find it funny that most retailers online still don't get it about online shopping. I'm not looking for market hype to pump up the product online! I'm looking for dimensions, included architectural design methods, interoperable components, stress tests and accompanying graphs, and all the other vast amounts of information to be had that doesn't fit nicely on the back of the box at the store. And if that's not what the online store is selling, it better be hard-to-find, very unique, very specific stuff they're selling or it's not worth my time and effort to order it from them -> I'd rather just run to the store on my way home and pick up the item(s) myself.
This service looks like another pathetic attempt to sell content on the Internet, which failed miserably and continues to fail. It's even easier to filter out ads on the internet than to filter them out flipping through a copy of the magazine on the shelf. I can't run a bayesian filter on the ads in the magazines on the rack at the store or on my home mailbox filled with Publisher's Clearing House junkmail, but I can on my email inbox. I can use everything BUT IE to filter out ads on Internet web pages.
SCO Targets US Government, TiVo: 1.86%
Real Announce Helix Grant Program, Player: 3.96%
Former Intel Engineer Pleads Guilty To Taliban Aid: 1.67%
Novell To Cease NetWare Development?: 8.18%
Sinclair's Answer To The Segway: 0.00%
Given these numbers, it seems that about 2-5% of the active /. readers is a subscriber. If they have a maximum of 30 ad suppressions per day, they each contribute US$ 0.15 per day. The big unknown is of course the number of active /. readers. If it's 50000, then that's 1000-2500 subscribers, or US$ 150-375 per day.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
This would never happen, because of the amount of competition. For every website that would charge there are and there would be a hundred that would not.
There is no way that you can corner people on the Internet as you can do with physical stores, where you can take over a key piece of land and play with that. That simply does not happen in Cyberspace.
All this is wishful thinking by companies. If you go to CNN, for example, they want people to pay for some stream-based content. But why should you? There are so many website within and outside the US that will provide you with the same content for free that it is ridiculous. And as more time passes, more people will be more aware of this fact.
... or some other content provider associated with an ISP (Like Yahoo! DSL) ... where they include a whole bunch of "Premium" content with the net access bill. That seems like the only way I'd likely get into the deal. Or, if "micropayment" type stuff showed up on my phone bill every month, that'd be a lot easier to swallow for some reason, than filling out a ton of forms online and sending my CC # everywhere.
Magazine subscription departments are scum. I was purely amazed at the crap my basset received in the mail after I subscribed her to Spy magazine.
Can't be tracked buying at the newsstand, and paying cash! Would you buy a subscription to 2600 through these guys?
They have dumb web designers:
Just make the content be delivered on the first HTTP request. Please don't make my browser have to fetch another page. That's just stupidity. And it's lousy web design. And dump the Javascript, too.
Back to Google News for me.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Content and content are two completely separate words, for fsck's sake! You have content which is a good feeling in you. Then you have content which you may remember from such phrases as "that game lacks content" or "the contents of my wallet are empty".
I have just lost any and all respect I ever had for ESR or RMS, whoever actually said it. Being unable or unwilling to learn that two words spelled the same have different meanings just smacks of arrogance and stupidity.
From Good Morning Silicon Valley (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/bu siness/columnists/gmsv/6437075.htm):
Errata: In a post in Monday's column I described Louis Borders as "the man behind the spectacular failure that was Webvan." That honor belongs to George Shaheen.
Now, I should mention that when I speak of content, I'm speaking of things like music, movies, text, etc. Those things lose most, if not all, of their value once they become digital and reach the internet. So what can be sold?
Experiences. Slashdot is an experience, live broadcasts (think pay-per-view) are experiences, chats with famous people are experiences, etc, etc, etc.
Certain types of things DO have value on the internet, just not all of them. What is currently going on right now as the internet comes of age is that people are experimenting with it to see what sells and what doesn't. Not everything is guaranteed to sell, in fact, you may ruin your chance of selling a physical version of it as well if you unsuccessfully try to sell something on the net (RIAA again). Its a big gamble, and there will be lots of casualties, but eventually we will learn what can and cannot be sold on the internet.
A good example of how this works is in Snowcrash. Hiro does a search for something with the librarian, and filters for free content only. Yet when he needs something rare or specific, he has to pay for it. In fact, a whole profession (gargoyles) has sprung up around this business of rare/hard to obtain/unique information. Well, just my two (or fifty) cents worth.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
This is very common with debit cards; less so with credit cards, but still a problem, as credit cards are issued by banks and not by Visa and Mastercard. The only real alternative is PayPal, which cannot really be trusted with more than five dollars of your money at a time.
-----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Google News only has news. While there are magazines devoted to news, there are a minority. Try searching for "home theater" on Google News. You won't find shopping guides or how-to manuals. Try searching for "pizza" on Google News. You won't find reviews of resteraunts or recipies. Of course you can go to other sources and find this kind of information, but it just shows how very limited Google News is. Now if you search for SCO on Google News...
I recommend trying the Keepmedia site. You get a week for free and all you have to give them is a made up email address. Their search engine produces interesting results, especially if you start jamming their "More Like This" button.
I agree to some extent. When I was in the US, I used to spend 2 hours daily reading the wsj. When I left the US, I asked wsj is they provided a subscription to the country I was going to. They did- 3500 $ a year and the paper would arrive 3 days later. So the next best alternative? wsj.com.
Id still have to say that wsj.com is a pale comparison to its paper version.
Those who question whether something is worth paying could take one look at google news. There may be 300 news sources for a particular story but 270-280 of them would barely be different from reuters or AP.
Take nytimes for example. Articles in the nytimes is rarely direct reproductions from AFP or AP. Articles might be a few hours late or even a day late but when you read articles there, it is better researched and more detailed than you would find elsewhere.
There are lots of people who cannot afford not to subscribe to their business news etc.
NOt if they don't have to. Because they're a bunch of self-righteous shitheads who talk about how they'd pay for this and that if only it was available but no matter how cheap those songs adn movies get, you'll go download it for free.
The first paper currency was NOT backed in gold. If you look on a bill, it says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE." Coins were valuable because of the metals involved. The ORIGINAL papermoney, Federal Greenbacks, were issued by the Congress to pay for the Civil War. They were "Legal Tendar" for all PRIVATE debts. Taxes (then simply duties) had to be paid in specie (gold coins) so that the government had hard money by which they could purchase things, particularly from Europe. All PRIVATE individuals had to accept Greenbacks as payment, and failure to accept them got people jailed.
:)
As a result, MASSIVE inflation happened, as the government issued Greenbacks for purchases that were considered legal tender but were backed with nothing.
The gold standard was created later, to allow printed money for convenience, while being exchangable for gold. This avoided inflation and created the paper economy.
The first paper money was backed by the full faith of the Union military.
Alex
You're definitely right to say that users will pay for specific content, especially trade-related content (your thousand-dollar newsletters). My firm pays through the nose for content, some of it web-specific, a lot of it web-accessible, because law is heavily research-driven. But we'd be paying (and often are paying) for the same products on paper anyway.
Personally, I pay for a very few sites, including one (Fark) which I won't be paying for anymore because of signal/noise problems. I won't buy the cow, though, when they are giving the milk away for free, so I'll never pay for newspaper content unless it was for a critical piece of research. Someone's always going to be reprinting the wire for free.
(Disclaimer: I did not RTFI) I don't see why anybody would pay for news on the internet. As long as you can hit yahoo, msn, cnn, and countless other free news sources, not to mention googling for specific topics, I don't see a reason to pay for it. I highly doubt even the subscribers here at /. are here for the news, but rather the discussion it generates. The only way I see something like this working is if he makes it "News for Stock Brokers. Money Matters." Even then I doubt this kind of thing would work.
Trust Your Technolust
Another problem is that most things I want to purchase online are physical goods such as USB mice, books, movies, etc., which have to be physically sent to me with some means, causing inconvenience (I must be home at 4pm, or I must remember to retrieve my mail package) and increasing cost. Electronic books are significantly less portable (because a computer is required) than real books even in a free format (plain text, HTML, ordinary PDF), they are even more inconvenient when DRM'ed (possibly Windows-only for example), so I'm willing to pay much less for them.
BTW, before anyone mods me offtopic, aren't books and movies "content" as meant by the author?
They can't even get people to pay for music - something that they the vast majority of people have been paying for all their lives. Now they are going to switch to a pay model for the same content? It worked for cable for a reason - better content. Short of cutting the reason most people visit a site in the first place (and eliminating new user bases from arriving and realizing why they should subscribe) I see no way for this to work. The /. "ads/no ads" and "see it first" model honestly seems one that might work the best to increase revenue a bit and keep a large consumer base. (And keep increasing both the ad revenue and subscriber revenue)
On a side note, a donation to a website may be tax deductable, but a subscription can be taxed.
Heck, I couldn't get people to go to a website even if I paid them. And now people think I'm going to drop a dime every time I visit their crappy site? HA! Starting/Creating a website is (for the most part) CHEAP! I don't care how much you claim your site costs to operate. If you've got sufficient traffic to necessitate big-bucks-bandwidth, then you should be able to get willing advertisers that can pay. (See local radio and TV business models for success stories.) There's over 17,000 three letter combinations, and ALL OF THEM have been registered as a dot com. This does not include all the dictionary words that have been snagged up, and the myriad of compound words that are being used. Rest assured that with so many domains out there, there will always be FREE websites. Those who think their stuff is too cool for us freeloaders will probably find themselves out of business unless they can lobby enough laws to make running a website illegal without a required payment for access. I know those pesky pointy haired lawyer types can lobby some insane laws, but somehow I think they won't be able to stop the "free content" available on the internet without ultimately killing the whole thing...
Maybe in 2005 we can all sit back and lament, "Who knew? That whole internet craze thing was just a fad after all!"
--
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
How about access to ALL the content, no commercials. $50/mo
I'd be willing to pay for something like that. But when I have to pay TW $50/mo and Disney $50/mo and Sony $50/mo, etc. It adds up quickly and becomes less valuable than, say, owning the DVDs.
We haven't even begun to discuss the problems with broadband based distribution and streaming vs. DRM. They should give me access to download the whole MPEG4. Perhaps allocate me storage space, like 50GB for $50/mo, on my own system, encrypted so I can't copy the data, but allow me to control the content I store there. Like a Tivo.
Still, I'd rather have the DVDs so I can put the content on my network and view it anywhere. That's the whole point of going digital, isn't it?
The only content I pay generally fall into two categories: Sites I genuinely want to support and sites that give me information to help me with purchases.
I get such entertainment out of Fark that I felt obligated to give them some money. A site like IGN has reviews that I generally find helpful. I'm sure I have saved money buy reading a review before going out and blindly buying a game.
As an information professional, I do pay for content from the major service providers like Lexis-Nexis, Dialog, and Gale. I don't understand how the Borders Group can possibly offer better service than these three long established (and very profitable!) organizations.
Via my monthly bill.
Just like my cable TV, I pay a monthly fee for content.. I also have to pay for my equipment, my electricity usage...
Getting unwanted advertisements on top of that is offensive. ( not to mention the Spam ). So is the suggestion that I have might to pay MORE for the crap that I'm already getting hit with that i dont want.
Don't tell me I only pay an 'access' fee.. as I don't want to hear it. I pay. Period. If they cant make a profit in that business model, then they don't need to be in business.
I remember when cable was touted as 'commercial free'.. because I was paying for it.. that didn't last long... bastards....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Simply put, only if it's worth it, and so far it ain't.
I don't pay for Slashdot; I don't read it enough and I don't get enough from it to make it worth my while.
The same goes for other websites. Some gaming sites have gone to a paid subscription and I stopped visiting them. Why? Because I can get the same information elsewhere, and often at a higher quality. Why pay for gamespot.com when I can go to BluesNews and find reviews elsewhere. Besides the gamespot site is HORRIBLE.
I don't pay for Fileplanet because they still offer free downloads. When new demos come out I don't rush to download them because I know the free servers will be overloaded. So I wait until the hype has died down and then I download at high speed. I don't need to be part of the "must download this TODAY" crowd.
If you want me to part with my money, you have to make it worth my while. When I go to restaurants, I only tip well if the service and food is worth it. I sometimes don't leave a tip (well except maybe 10-25c) because it was crap.
people will never pay for internet content. come to think of it, they will never pay for tv or radio either.
Cable TV worked because it offered
quality - better picture
convenience - not a complicated setup
choice - more programming options
The iTunes Music Store is working because it offers
quality - high quality AAC files
convenience - integrated into iTunes and iPod
choice - not a big selection of music but you can do what you want with the music
I think one of the major factors that would make this type of service succesful is great hardware to go with it. Most of the eBook readers I have seen have poor specs and are not convenient to use. Some were built around proprietary formats.
I would love to see an eBook with the simplicity and usability of an iPod. Apple's OS is already based on the PDF. I would love to have 10,000 books in my hand.
The thing about your examples is that they deliver something at a higher quality than the free alternative does.
With cable, people no longer had to fuss with "rabbit ears," and were delivered programming in a superior quality.
Bottled water is typically superior to the tap stuff, especially here in San Diego (I can't stand the tap water here).
For people to pay for web content, it has to somehow be superior to what they get for free. However, unlike the two above examples, to do this you have to make the free things artificially inferior.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I actually believe that they will. Pete Abrams of Sluggy Freelance recently made a request for money, because he had trouble making ends meet. He arranged a donation-drive which was supposed to go on for about two weeks. After one (1) day he shut it down because they had gotten enough donations, and apparantly were almost drowning in credit card - payments that they had to process and accounts they had to activate.
It should be mentioned that Pete mentioned the donation-drive as a "perhaps I'll stop sluggy"-thing.
The internet is a big place. Everytime a site I like locks me out and asks for a subscription to access the content I move onto another (of the many) sites like it that don't charge. I just don't find it necessary to pay for the privelage of reading/downloading material online when Its so easy to get it free (legally by the way) elswhere in the world.
I'll look at ads all day long for this privilage (I understand they need to make money) or even donate once in a while, but I won't subscribe.
I pay for the important stuff that directly impacts my ability to make money or live the lifestyle I want to live. The rest is luxury that I can do without, especially if someone wants to nickel and dime me to death to access it.
If internet companies can build around my requirements I will give them my business/attention. If they don't, I go elswhere.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
...as long as it is CHEAP! That brings us back to the micropayment problem.
.5 quality or MP3 at 192 kpbs)....$.10
But here are some upper limits, in U.S. dollars
A page.....$.01
A song (downloaded in Ogg Vorbis
A whole CD.....$1
A 30 minute video (720x480, same sound quality as song above.....$1
A book (in HTML)....$1
A movie.....$2
And it must be free and clear. No damnable DRM crap. Otherwise it will fail.
What I think they really need...
A decent internet connection already costs too much, I don't want to have to pay to get into every site I visit it. What's next, libraries go pay per view?
Between cable TV and b-band internet service, I pay Comcast nearly $100/month as it is! If that's not paying for content I don't know what is. Yes, I know the inet service is paying for bandwidth, but when I write out the check each month, it certainly feels expensive.
.nosig
Honestly, what I've seen is quite a bit of mentality of "even though this site asks me to subscribe, it works good enough for me without paying - and they're obviously profiting off enough other people to keep it viable anyway".
(I'm very much guilty of this attitude myself.)
It seems to me, especially with web sites offering really "niche" information, they do better by offering everything free - but occasionally begging for donations. Giving people the "sob story" of "We can't afford to keep paying for our bandwidth unless we raise at least X by next month." seems to get regular users to fork over some cash. (Even better if it's made as easy as clicking a "Pay me now with PayPal!" type of button on the main page.)
The trick is, do it like a traditional fund raiser. Show the users regular, real-time updates of the total amount earned, and the goal you're trying to reach. People are much more likely to pay if they can actually see their contribution push a number closer to a target.
A big difference here is that the 'net is more of an interactive medium than a television. With TV, you have a fixed number of channels, with pre-scheduled programs, etc. The commercials float with the regular programming, so you use them to schedule a visit to the washroom, food, etc
On the 'net, you are in control of where you go. Links can be clicked through in a comfortable fashion, and anything that interrupts that is, well, an interruption. In this sense, it's something more like a dynamic magazine or newspaper: you can skip over the ads, or if they are really obtrusive (say, stapled an article you really want) rip them out. In-line ads aren't bad, and frankly I don't mind clicking on stuff from "thinkgeek" etc that I find interesting. Having to physically click through something that I find annoying non-useful is not productive to me, and wastes my time.
As proven time and time again. I implemented a subscription service at IcarusIndie.com for high bandwidth areas of the site in January and have made a nice amount of money. I'm not getting rich off of it but it's enough to know it's a feasible idea. My site isn't large enough yet (and doesn't have a fast enough connection) to expect a large number of subscribers.
The problem is just like any other business, most people just slap up a site, throw some crap on it and expect people to pay. My site was entirely free for as long as my connection could take it. Which was 2 years. I then went through my log summaries, figured out what was taking up the most bandwidth and put it behind htaccess and now sell accounts to access those files.
Another thing is that you can't lock everything down. Otherwise people aren't going to be finding your site. I made sure to leave a bunch of good stuff freely available even though it takes quite a bit of bandwidth. The site is also diverse in it's content to attract people for quite a number of reasons.
The other thing is that most businesses fail. It's not surprising that there are a few big money makers and a lot of no money makers. Setting up a business anywhere takes talent and a product people will pay for. Most people don't have either.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
I think people will only pay for content that is truly unavailable via the "free" method. Ninety percent of the time, the content that is for sale via a pay service is available somewhere else (in a slightly different form), for free. When "pay" competes with "free", "pay" generally loses.
The problem I see is quite simple. Most subscription based content will tend to reduce the available audience. Only a certain (and small) percentage of users will be willing to pay for content.
On the other hand, content distribution sites want to generate advertising revenue, and for that they need big audiences.
So:
Big audiences = Big ad revenue potential
but
Paid content = exponentially lower audience
and therefore
Paid content = Low ad revenue potential
Therefore, only business models that can actually survive of subscription payments and don't need ad revenue can follow that route. And trust me, I think it is quite a dificult one.
On the other hand, we are starting to see some sites that chose a mixed approach, that is free content to everyone (to attract audience) with some benefits to members (the Slashdot model). This is ok, but I have a feeling that the subscription revenues will always be really small when compared to the ad revenues. If this affirmation is correct, the subscription revenues may as well be discarded. Or they may act as a cushion for these times when ads disappear. But not a very large one. Only time will tell how things evolve.
By the way, e-commerce is completely different. I mean, people will buy books, cds, tickets and any other merchandise that has real value on real life. It will just be Internet competing against normal business. It is also a very hard business, and only really organized companies can be profitable, like Amazon is proving. Because you need to have very efficient stock control, logistics for sending merchandise, efficient computer databases, and much more, things that many "regular" shops don't need to afford. On the other hand, audience is much bigger, but competition too...
i guess more and more people i know are signing up for safari. not exactly the same, but still they're paying for content.
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
The fact is, asking hypothetical questions to consumers has never historically been a good indicator of product viability.
After all, some people once said they would pay for chocolate peanut butter. And other people said they would never drive up to a window to pick up dinner.
So despite the avalanche of "I wouldn't pay for it" references here, this business could still prove successful.
People WILL pay to get solid, limited-bias, ad-free information all in one place.
I love Google--but the reality is, there's still a lot of junk to be waded through there. And you're going to get a lot of heavily-biased commercial sites thrown at you, regardless of what you search for.
Borders has a way to go with Keep Media, but he's off to a good start. He needs more titles, and he's got some subject area holes to fill. His pricing is right though.
The question here is not really, "Will people pay for content?" By its very nature, the folks on this board aren't going to give you a representative sample of the general consumer population anyway. The question is, "Will ENOUGH people pay to make it a viable business?" That's where a lot of other things come into play. For example (as has been mentioned) bundling this with other services. "Sign up with ISP xyz and get a free subscription to Keep Media." I suspect they'll make more money that route than the individual sales route--but by offering an individual price tag on the site, they give it more perceived value to the bundle customers.
The long and short of it is, a lot of people are spoiled from the dotcom days and still have the "free" taste in their mouth. That's changing. I'm not certain that Keep Media will make a fortune, but I think it's a viable business, if they can maintain and continue to add content, and they market it right.
I have an online non-content retail business that does about $70k a month, and based on my experience, there are buyers out there for most everything you could imagine.
Keep in mind there are millions and millions of folks online, and it only takes a fractional percentage of those folks to earn you a good income.
Given a basic, competent product, it's all in the marketing.
Those who question whether something is worth paying could take one look at google news. There may be 300 news sources for a particular story but 270-280 of them would barely be different from reuters or AP.
I view this as a good thing. I hate having to wade through the fluff and spin that most major US news companies see fit to attach to a real news story. Just give me the facts and let me sort it out, I don't need (questionable) research and formating done for me.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I work at a publishing company with a slew of websites. Sure, we can do what AOL did and block access to everyone but paid subscribers... but then the web visitors will just go to the competition.
For every site, there are a dozen good/decent quality sites that offer the same content. I mean if CNN became a paid site would you pay or go to another news site?
No one has cracked the paid-for-content nut and this effort surely won't do it either. I mean maybe if they sent you a PDF of the magazine for offline reading - but just reading on the web? Forget it.
We pay for intangible goods all the time. Concerts, insurance, cable TV, internet access, theatre tickets, etc. This isn't a foreign concept. Just because I bought the car and the gas and the insurance to get me to the store doesn't mean I shouldn't have to pay for the products at the store.
And the majority of this thread is "I won't pay for on-line writtings so the subscription model doesn't work." Meanwhile sites are selling subscriptions for a variety of things. Most of the money I make from my site is from people who need drivers. They're looking for a specific file Windows told them they were missing, looked for it on Google and my site turns up as having it.
The "freeloaders" vs "paying customers" argument depends entirely on what you're selling. People selling fruit on the side of the road probably have far far more people driving by than buying but the amount that do buy, satifies their monetary needs. And that's all that matters.
People who try to sell things which are readily available for free obviously aren't going to do as well as those selling things which are more of a hassle to come by otherwise.
This isn't a black and white issue. There are numerous variables that determine the success of any busiess whether it's on-line or on a city street. You just have to know what those variables are to properly establish a successful company.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
"Bush lied, people died. Ain't it time that he was tried?"
No, but it is about time that you died.
The Economist (economist.com) a well respected british news weekly makes content available online to all subscribers for no aditional fee - and prior to the issue being available on the newstand (articles go up 5PM GMT Thursday, I rarely receive my issue before Saturday). It's a dense enough publication that I have little desire to read the whole online, but it is a great way to refer to prior articles.
How about you use your brain and think of your own thoughts and ideas instead of sucking ESR's cock? You are a stupid fucking lemming.
Maybe, but if and only if there are no banner ads or popup ads. And, of course, the content has to be fresh every single day.
I don't know, I think subscriptions are exactly what people want. They just want subscriptions to be cheaper and broader than what any of the conventional media content providers think they should be. 50 dollars a year to stream music on demand from a complete catalog maybe, 45 cents more to download a song in a more permanent format, all on one bill. Streamed movies released two months after the DVD release for about the same, with a coupon for buying DVDs attached to it? Not a single print magazine released for a subscription, but a media catalog of print magazines for maybe 10-20 bucks a year. I think optimally a lot of this stuff would bill to my ISP too, because whether or not they like it my ISP is going probably be my primary media provider eventually anyways.
I tend to think that online content subscriptions will never work, for many reasons. There is the instant gratification nature of the Internet, and the massive amount of control the user has in choosing what s/he views every nanosecond, versus zero control over television advertisements. (Okay, excluding porn ad popup trails.)
I often relate content subscriptions to online advertising, something that will only truly work if there is a major change in the way online content is presented, a change that people probably won't like. Who doesn't hate ads before video content on some free online sevices (ala Yahoo! Launch)... a service that hasn't matured enough to have a variety of ads?
I think non-free content can work, but only on small levels, when it targets small interest niches. Providing media that is commonly available from many sources and charging for it while it's otherwise free obviously doesn't work.
Essentially, you have to offer something in the form of content that is extremely unique and entertaining or particularly informative to a certain interest group, and you have to provide an insane amount of this, updated frequently throughout the day. A set of rich content that fits these qualities and also can't be exhausted after viewing it for a few hours. This sounds sort of like news, and a little like slashdot, but news doesn't work since it is otherwise readily available at no cost.
So, I think subscription content can work on small levels targeting certain interest groups with rich content that is not (mainly) news, yet is updated frequently throughout the day, is consistently unique, interesting, entertaining, and/or informative, and so much is available that users won't exhaust the content quickly.
What other types of stuff can you do this with besides music?
First off, the selection of mags is even worse than what the local teenager comes to the door trying to sell you so they can "realize their future." Second, after scanning that, I discovered they've added code to the site so you can't use your browser's Back button to get out of it. Did they hire porn techs to program it for them? Will they bring along other ethical practices from the porn industry?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Am I made of money?Ahhh no.Should I pay for info that should be free?Ahhhh no.Will I pay for info that should be free?Hell no.
"Will Internet Users Pay for Content? Yes, they will when they have to. When they start logging on to sites that just arn't there anymore."
Just like we all pay for our microsoft software, otherwise we'd end up loading a program that just wasn't there any more?
Correct response to removal of some shared resource is to create a replacement. Why spend thousands of dollars propping up some crap like mirriam-webster when you can just create a WikiPedia to replace it? Why spend money to prop-up download.com when you can create a RPMFind to replace it? Why spend money to prop-up shareware when you can create some GNU to replace it?
Would you spend all your money buying water from your neighbour's well, or dig your own?
Will people Pay for content on the internet?
.0001 cented to death.
Although there are a few sites that are subscription based, and they seem to do well (niche markets it seems) as a general rule, I think absolutely not.
several reasons,
-people are sick of being nickle and dimed to death.
-people are used to free. with internet access fees most people think they are already paying for content
-the content that is to be charged for, is almost invariably available for free somewhere else (Google IS god)
-free is NOT a dirty word- the majority of the 'content' I want and use is from and for devotees of my area of interest (in my case BMX Bikes; there is resentment towards mountain bike companies making BMX bikes just for the money, the same concept of Web 'content' just for the money offends)
Make it because you love it (yeah yeah I know dreamy Uptopian crap...=)
and I think this is another major reason, and it is the major reason that I personally have never purchased a single thing on the net, I DO NOT POSSESS A CREDIT CARD. This makes online payments, much less 'micropayments' just a huge pain in the ass.
There are millions just like me, and even more who will simply refuse to give out there personal info at every turn.
I prefer the anonimity of web surfing,I rarely fill out forms with my real name and other such pseudo 'anonymous' web habits.(I am aware that with subpeonas and some digging they will know who I am)
but its the whole rfid tag thing.
I don't want to be tracked, monitored, analyzed, cross-referenced and target marketed. nor do I want to be
the net is not ALL about making money. Get over it
What does it say that I checked the changelog on this to see if I had to re-read it.
If nothing else, it's funny as crap. =)
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
And I quote:
Do you think the freeloader mentality on the Internet is ready for change?
I think it's at the turn of the hockey stick, because it's at about 15 percent of the Web population that's paying for content right now--that's still a low number. Very soon, you'll see that the content that's left to be free is content that will not be trusted; content that has a bias. Just like when you pick up a magazine that's free, and you don't trust it.
If this isn't a reality-distortion-field view of the Internet and web publication I don't know what is.
15%? THAT's highballing it. I bet those numbers were garnered from a website poll that sells subscription services (and sells ads to display at subscribers).
Pretty soon free content will be perceived as biased? If that ever occurs, the Internet is officially dead. Might as well call it CableTV 2.0.
Whatever happened to the idea of giving as well as taking? If everyone who cared to voice an honest opinion had a webserver, then everyone would be contributing equally, and paying for Internet access would be payment enough.
Now I'm pissed off. I can't believe bozos like this are still spinning up this dredge. I hope he goes down in a flaming ball of VC cash.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Because I can't code. I find writing definitions hard and my day job involves sitting at a desk, so I'd probably find digging a well pretty taxing on my muscles.
...I like my job and career, but I work to get money to buy things I want and need. Otherwise I'd just spend it sitting at the beach--at least a good bit more of it. That's why people invented money, because it provides the most efficient way to trade skills.
Should I build my own computer? Perhaps I should create my own chips with open-sourced schematics. (Add sand, aluminum, other hazardous chemicals, microwave on medium for 5 minutes. Viola!)
If my neighbor wants to come over and DIG MY WELL FOR ME ala Linus, than great. If it gives me clean water, we're set. But, I'm looking out my window right now and I don't see any movement.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Hey, I'm 22 years old and I don't pay for my internet (I piggyback my neighbors wireless), I don't pay for my music (go to hell RIAA), I don't pay for my pr0n, and I sure as hell won't pay for news that I can just Google cache.
But I'm not freeloader, paying is for suckers.
Damn, I gotta go, though, my mom's coming to check her ebay auctions on the computer.
________________________________________________ I crochet because I'm lonely; I'm lonely because I crochet.
People have been paying for online content for many years now. It's called Lexus-Nexus, it's an online law database, and lawyers pay big money for access to this research information. All freely and publicly available. So basically, they're paying for the convenience.
Don't forget the newsfeeds stock traders pay upwards of $1000/month for.
If the information has real value and someone can use it to generate revenue - people will pay for it.
Will people pay to read online news or comics or look at pr0n? Or even listen to music? No. I think that the last 5-7 years have shown this.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I happen to work for a very large publishing company, and we've been in the business of aggregating periodical content and delivering it electronically for years now. We have over 6000 publications and full-text for periodicals going back to 1980 and beyond. We cover everything from Time, New York Times, Newsweek to Electronic Engineering Times, Aids Weekly Plus to Playboy (just for the articles - no images). Not only do we have all of this content, but much of it has been indexed and abstracted. There are at least 3 large companies that do this: ProQuest (used to be UMI), the Gale Group, and EBSCO. Heck, the Gale Group recently released a product that has digitized every significant english language text from the 18th century. They're going to digitze the entire archive of the London Times. The thing is, you'll find these products in schools, public and academic libraries and in some larger corporate libraries. When we sell a product, we sell it to large universities or at the state level for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given the large infrastructure already built up - content management systems, delivery systems - the expertise and experience in managing this content, and the large archive of past data, if any one of these companies thought there was money to be made in the consumer market, they could step in easily and crush this guy.
Subscribe to pay sites or not? Who cares? Some will, some won't. Some models will be successful, some won't.
But please stop insulting us by saying Internet users won't pay for content on the Internet. I am so sick and tired of that offensive claim. I pay for Internet access. As such, I already pay for content. And I'm NEVER gonna pay another dime. If you can't figure out how to bundle the cost of the services you are trying to shill into my one single point-of-contact online entrance fee, then go away, that's your problem.
Don't tell me that I don't pay for content on the Internet. You just want me to pay more than I pay now. Or pay through additional channels than I do now. Every month, I pay an ISP to let me on. To imply that I don't pay is insulting.
Pay for the internet? Let me count the ways...
I pay for salon.com - spend 80% of my time online on that on that site alone
I pay for photosig.com - who else will let me host my pics and then let my peers grade them ?
I pay for wsj - can't imagine managing a portfolio without wall st journal
That's about $200 annual, but my wife actually pays a lot more. Access to medical journals like nejm.org , medscape.com and a whole lot more, easily adds up to $500 or more.
A lot of ppl are willing to pay for good content, but the keyword is "good", not "content".
I seem to remember hearing long ago (I don't remember where from, so it could be completely wrong) that the subscription fees that people pay for print magazines typically just cover the printing and delivery, and the cost of the actual content is covered by the advertising. If that is the case, why can't online publications be profitable without needing to charge subscription fees? The cost of running a website should be much lower than printing and distributing paper copy (assuming you aren't blowing outrageous amounts of money on an overkill content management system). So, why can't online advertising cover the cost of content production? A few ideas:
... and wtf ... i didn't force the company to distribute the content so don't bitch at me for taking it ... and not paying for it.
but i think we just established that it is paid for
Trust me, the interntet is here to stay, and commercialization can only make it less useful. The internet is the information superhighway, and charging people to access content will cause a major and irreversible traffic jam.
Dude, trekweb.com is where it's at. The webmaster even saw the Enterprise set itself; He's hooked up.
It's not challenging at all. They simply have to use the same principles that were used every other time a new distribution medium appeared.
(And make consumers aware of these facts.)
As usual, Step 2 is the biggest problem. Of course, none of these people trying to sell content on the 'net has any patience - they want millions of dollars and they want them *now*, or else it's a dismal failure.
The problem with this is that people are already paying for the content; they pay for net access
Not the same thing. Unless a website is run by the same company that runs the ISP, the content provider doesn't see a cent from the user.
Finish reading the sentence.
and most people feel that should be all they need to pay.
Your logic means nothing. Arguing here does no good, people feel that should be all they need to pay. Talk to the people, not to the observer.
Users eventually will accept having to pay for access and content separately, just as your cable bill gets you 50 channels but HBO and pay-per-view still cost extra.
Are those 50 basic channels free? No, (eh, some of them) the cable company pays for them out of your cable bill.
And I just have to add that if I'm expected to pay for html, it'd better be standard compliant html. *cough*slashdot*cough*
I don't pay, I consume for free.
While a number of sites (most notably FT.com, at least here in the UK) are able to make good money from a subscription-based model in return for up-to-date news that certain people find very useful, this kind of model is yet to show any real promise in selling to normal consumers.
While investors etc will pay for specific types of information that will hopefully yield them a concrete benefit, consumers (for the most part) wish to be entertained, and in our day and age this tends to mean audiovisual entertainment. Unfortunately companies wishing to sell such content over the web must face the fact that this places them in competition with TELEVISION.
Internet media providers have no chance whatsoever of competing with such a massive and entrenched industry, especially when they offer the same type of content.
At the moment, television offers MUCH better picture and sound quality than streamed media, and essentially for nothing, if you don't mind adverts (or ignore them).
While there are a lot of PC's in the USA, there are a great many more television sets.
What manner of media do they hope to sell? TV companies are in a better position to make 'normal' shows, and no internet startup no matter how well funded could hope to outbid the likes of HBO or Fox for the right to stream major sporting events etc.
Alas, i fear that the first companies to make any real inroads in this arena will be the same oligopolists which dominate the TV market. Given that I am not willing to pay 120 (UKP - pound sign dies in preview) for the right to use a television (i live in the UK, where there is an annual levy on TV's), the odds of me paying out to watch the same tedious crap over the net are frankly nil.
I hope to be proved wrong.........
Please read the title.
Sell stuff. Real, physical stuff like shirts, coffee mugs, and books. Books have to be printed and are therefore a risk, but the shirts and mugs can be made to order by various outfits. No inventory to worry about.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
He was making an example of himself, seeeee?
both are pretty much all advertising supported (at least in my neck of the woods). At the same time, many cable networks are doing quite well. My point is that there are a lot of people with a lot of different priorities in life. Some will pay for content on the web, particularly if it's important to them, while the majority won't (for any particular site). That's OK, you don't need to serve EVERYONE to make a buck. The magic of the Internet is that all of a sudden, niche markets are a lot bigger and easier to reach. My bet is that many content sites will eventually be profitable, especially as 'net advertising moves toward brand building rather than "click throughs".
I secretly hope the commercial internet cash cow is largely a failure. Pay for content? I don't think so. I see the net as a vast library, not a cable tv service. I hope the big media companies decide that there isn't much $$ in the net and leave it alone.
I have created and maintain many useful websites on a variety of topics which I have some expertise. I offer this info for free and enjoy the useful info posted by others.
I don't mind ads on websites. Occasionally I even click an interesting one. But obnoxious, flashing, in-my-face ads are a sure way to turn me off to your product.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Cheap bastard ...
ummm ;)
not many opensource projects have marketing departments