I think a lot of posts here are missing the point of the rant. Perhaps my perception is skewed by having read Piro's previous rants about covering the site's costs; I've already got the background story to understand what he means. Let me both clarify and expand, if I may.
We buy products because we like them, or we at least think we do. But, when we dislike the seller, we tend to project that dislike onto the product as well. Because we can financially hurt the seller through the product and capital used to sell it, it becomes the seller to us, in a way. By boycotting or destroying stores/merchandise we strike out at the seller by proxy. Animal rights activists douse furs in red paint, some people use Linux/AMD machines because they percieve a Wintel monopoly, etc... There can come a point where the product itself ceases to matter so much as who is selling it.
This, I think Piro argues, and I would as well, relates to what happened to many web sites that switched from free site to paysite. Especially those sites that did so unexpectedly or on short order. People, rightly or wrongly, expected something that was free to continue to be so. If it suddenly comes at a price, with no added value for that price, people feel that something they once had was taken from them. It's not a matter of business on the internet in particular, or even of people being cheapskates. It's a matter of human psychology.
Now, if I think someone took something from me, I'm going to dislike them. And if I project that dislike onto the product they sell, I'm less likely to buy it. If there are a lot of people like me, the product fails to sell and the seller goes under. QED.
That said, the "swag model" a'la MT dodges this particular problem. They charge to cover their costs, but rather than taking something away they add value through sweet spinoff merchandise. The original free content reamins free, so long as the swag sells. (Please sell, swag. Sell like mad.) Penny Arcade is doing something similar with "Club PA" where donators get something extra. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/) These apporaches avoid the psychological pitfalls. In fact, their rants on the topic (in both PA and MT) may even play on psychology by humanizing the authors and engendering favorable feelings (which might also transfer onto the product).
And if the MT swag and book does not sell well enough and the site dies, I will sit in a snowbank and cry.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of posts here are missing the point of the rant. Perhaps my perception is skewed by having read Piro's previous rants about covering the site's costs; I've already got the background story to understand what he means. Let me both clarify and expand, if I may.
We buy products because we like them, or we at least think we do. But, when we dislike the seller, we tend to project that dislike onto the product as well. Because we can financially hurt the seller through the product and capital used to sell it, it becomes the seller to us, in a way. By boycotting or destroying stores/merchandise we strike out at the seller by proxy. Animal rights activists douse furs in red paint, some people use Linux/AMD machines because they percieve a Wintel monopoly, etc... There can come a point where the product itself ceases to matter so much as who is selling it.
This, I think Piro argues, and I would as well, relates to what happened to many web sites that switched from free site to paysite. Especially those sites that did so unexpectedly or on short order. People, rightly or wrongly, expected something that was free to continue to be so. If it suddenly comes at a price, with no added value for that price, people feel that something they once had was taken from them. It's not a matter of business on the internet in particular, or even of people being cheapskates. It's a matter of human psychology.
Now, if I think someone took something from me, I'm going to dislike them. And if I project that dislike onto the product they sell, I'm less likely to buy it. If there are a lot of people like me, the product fails to sell and the seller goes under. QED.
That said, the "swag model" a'la MT dodges this particular problem. They charge to cover their costs, but rather than taking something away they add value through sweet spinoff merchandise. The original free content reamins free, so long as the swag sells. (Please sell, swag. Sell like mad.) Penny Arcade is doing something similar with "Club PA" where donators get something extra. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/) These apporaches avoid the psychological pitfalls. In fact, their rants on the topic (in both PA and MT) may even play on psychology by humanizing the authors and engendering favorable feelings (which might also transfer onto the product).
And if the MT swag and book does not sell well enough and the site dies, I will sit in a snowbank and cry.