Or, they need to find a new, workable revenue model for an age where people do not want to pay just to be informed about the world. The news itself must be subsidized by something else, some related business where the newspapers can use their reputation for quality journalism to boost sales. What that business might be, I do not personally know, but if it cannot be discovered, then you are right: journalists are going to be begging for money to do their work.
That related business is journalism that is more concretely worth
something to its readers: helping them choose the most suitable product.
In the past the only reward publishers could (legitimately) get from this
type of journalism was by selling ads around it, plus any money they made on
the cover price. But as information distribution has opened up, ads-around-content is no
longer as lucrative as it once was, particularly when they are cuting their own throats by making it more and more intrusive.
But lately more publications (including Slashdot) have been getting into the affiliate sales game, which gains them good revenue for some product-related journalism at the expense of involving their journalism in the sales process.
An alternative to affiliate sales is to make it possible for a product purchaser
to identify which sources of advice helped them choose their product,
and have those sources rewarded with either a share of any
cash rebate the purchaser receives, or with a bonus payment from the
product's maker. This allows publishers to be paid more often, including when they give
a product a bad review.
As has always been the case, such journalism can subsidise hard news.
It's true that it'd be infeasible to have to authorise payment for each article, but you could have a system where you bless certain publications to charge you a particular amount for each item, valid for a particular period. Then you've just got to manage this white-list.
Newspapers are already cheap, but they are not free. But they aren't micro-priced either. Whether it is buying a paper at the stand or subscribing months at a time, there is a valid value proposition there.
Yes, big media will be loath to replace their bundling with item-based micropayments, because that would devalue their masthead and put them on an equal footing with smaller competitors. So they'll first try to make their bundles bigger (perhaps through a cartel).
If you can't determine the value of news until after you read it, isn't any system based on pay-by-value voluntary?
Here's one voluntary solution and one compulsory solution. These only work for material that assists people in some direct or indirect way with product purchases. Such material can of course cross-subsidise hard news, as has always been the case.
Voluntary: Make it possible for purchasers to make donations to creators of material that has helped them choose the product they have bought, and allow these donations to be paid out of a manufacturer's cash rebate. Donations are more likely in this case because the donor is being prompted during a cashback claim to give a portion of something that's not yet in their pocket. No credit card required.
Compulsory: Allow publishers to charge a firm fee for an item, but allow this fee to be recovered from subsequent cash rebates the reader receives. The reader pays nothing up-front.
If you don't read pulp crap then it's impossible to read that much. Quality literature consumes much more brain power than pulp fiction and is tiresome to read. Pulp, romance, horror, J.K. Rowling, ect. are just as strenuous on the brain as watching Two and a Half Men, so you can do it all day. Load her kindle up with Shakespeare and Steinbeck and she'll have to take breaks.
Quite true, unless you're really just skimming in order to get another book under your belt. In which case, why bother?
Even middle-brow literature like Stephen King should be taken it slowly to properly absorb the characters, settings, and ideas.
And you will get every site to sign onto this? Do you think there won't be competing companies doing this single sign-on thing? To get to everything, you'll have to have a "single" sign-on with 15 different companies, different balances with each one, and so on. It will never work.
I suppose he'll be relying on being the first, and will include
a lot of sign-up and renewal incentives. He'll also be working
to make his content more unique, with more analysis and opinion
over straight news. People will pay to be comforted by what they
want to hear.
Think of the Slashdot model: You purchase so many page views.
These would be able to be used on any News Ltd. or affiliated
site (with possible multipliers for premium sites).
Newly registered users who enter a credit card
number get $10 free credit. Max 3 accounts per CC.
But some will survive, and anyone who wants to know what's happening will have to pay them. Right Rupert?
Or read a summary on a blog or other site that doesn't pay News Corp syndication fees.
It will all come down to a fight over the definition of derivative works, and legislative support
for quicker take-down of material with disputed copyright.
There will also be a focus on articles that can't be easily summarised. More analysis and opinion.
Ad revenue must eventually track ad effectiveness. If everyone did what you suggest, there would be no ad revenue.
The free content you consume relies on those who are still influenced by advertising. While I believe that the effectiveness of advertising is slowly diminishing, advertisers are sometimes willing for a campaign to cost much more than the sales it immediately generates, because it can bootstrap a critical-mass of market-presence and word-of-mouth.
That's why there hasn't been much of an attempt to fight ad-blockers. Not only is it counter-productive to force ads down people's throats, ads automatically become targeted to those who are open to that sort of influence. It's important therefore to use ad-blockers in a way that ad-views are not recorded.
If you define 'better person' as one who is happy, well adjusted and is nice to and trusting of others, then I doubt it. I'm pretty sure the more news you consume, the 'worse' you become.
If you define 'better person' as one who does critical analysis before casting a vote to improve society, then you may be right. However, I contend few people define 'better' in this way.
I mean, who would YOU rather hang out with?
Unfortunately, trusting blissful ignorance only gets you
used and run over by the real world. And while it's true that knowledge
and experience gradually beats the idealism and optimism
out of you, it's right to fight cynicism. That is, you should
use your wisdom for good rather than evil.
I like to hang out with a well-read person who uses this
knowledge to take approprate risks, not a naive polyanna.
Often ignorance leads to superstition, which can make one
more closed and prejudiced.
I've never met a single person who would be willing to pay even $2 a month for access to a news site.
Yes, news that is sufficiently disposable and generic will struggle to be anything other than ad-supported. This is despite that fact that news really is worth paying for, because it cumulatively helps you understand how the world works, making you a better person. A micropayment system that reflected the a la carte nature of the Web would however be better than the subscription models that reflect the interests of the big media conglomerates.
But other sorts of information and opinion are more valuable, particularly those that relate to helping people choose the most suitable product to buy. The Wall Street Journal is of this type, but so are review sites.
Where users require regular ongoing advice, such a for shares, subscriptions can work, but not when the need is ad-hoc, such as for electronic equipment. Because advertising is unpopular (and hence low-paying), such sites are turning more and more to affiliate sales. But pairing advice and sales does create a conflict of interest for review sites, just as it does for full-service retailers.
It all depends on how much you trust the source. Amazon affiliate income gives Slashdot an incentive to publish positive book reviews, but we all trust Unkie Slash.
Because of its lack of ads, state-funded media is becoming
more and more popular. But commercial media are starting to
complain about unfair competition. Both the BBC and Australia's
ABC have cancelled radio expansion plans after complaints.
When public subsidies were raised as an option to support
struggling newspapers, the proprietors came out with a
strong rejection. This was expressed as a desire to remain
independent of government influence, but the more important
reason was a dream of continued power and profitability.
But we do need the commercial press. Government subsidies
can't hope to cover the variety of information people are
interested in consuming.
Do-not-contact lists are killing off B2C cold-calling, but
I'd say that it's still the #1 B2B marketing tool.
Cold-calling is very intrusive, but many type-A people-person executives respond better to
more personal and interactive pitches, rather than slabs of text.
I wish there was a way to reclaim the email channel for legitimate
marketing by paying the recipient to have the email delivered.
Gmail is in a good position to do this.
Yes. Oh, and screw TV and magazine ads, too, media should learn to live on subscription fees and subsidies. If those things were banned, all companies would have to rely on people who are actively looking for products and services they provide -- through search engines, phone directories, etc.
Google provides pretty much the only advertisement model (ironically, Internet-based one) that does not constantly assault the recipients with things they DO NOT WANT.
I agree that the more interruptive forms of push marketing have had their day.
Particularly TV ads, radio ads, banner ads, and telemarketing.
I still think there is a role for printed ads and letters,
because they are easily ignored or skimmed. But they are terribly wasteful.
Google's profits speak to the popularity of Search Marketing.
But paid-placement search marketing still delivers information
with an agenda, both in prominence and content. Even better would be the ability to easily find, use,
and compensate independent category experts who can help you
choose the most suitable product.
As you mention, the best way to fund these are fees (what do you mean
by subsidies?). But people are becoming more reluctant
to pay for information and advice, either preferring advertising,
or preferring to block ads and let the non-blockers pay for their service
until the system collapses.
So the alternatives are the Facebook et al. model of advice from amateurs,
or some better way to fund professional helpers than ads,
affiliate links, or product placements that turn them into salespeople.
I'm currently involved in one attempt to solve this problem.
I just think it's possible to add both freedom to redistribute and rewards for external contributions to this, while keeping it commercial. These could really grow the whole ecosystem.
I don't, because the next guy might have no problem with redistributing it at a price point of $0. I cannot compete with $0 no matter what I do.
The idea is to let them redistribute it for $0, but the licence
requires recipients of any copy or derived version to pay you, the original creator. There are ways to keep people honest: payment gives access to support ticketing, public acknowledgement, etc.
Three of my four commercial products are built on LAMP, so the source is already available.
Even though some free-software advocates think it's nothing,
allowing your customers to customize their deployments is a
great benefit. Don't start using a script obfuscater.
I just think it's possible to add both freedom to redistribute
and rewards for external contributions to this, while keeping
it commercial. These could really grow the whole ecosystem.
The other (not released yet) is a game, and I think for obvious reasons it's not going to be open-source..
It this because the source would help players cheat?
Does that mean that a legitimate business should never send unsolicited letters and flyers in the post, and should never cold-call? These are core tools of the marketing world.
Or is email different, destroyed as a legitimate marketing communication tool by black-hat spammers?
If they re-wrote it, using the GPL'd code as a guidline or reference but did not copy anything directly from it, then the only thing that can prevent them from doing so is a patent. Copyright only applies when you are copying a work, not when you are creating a similar but different work.
Are you sure of that? Non-clean-room reverse engineering suggests creation of a derived work. It's a grey area, because all research draws on other work. But I'd think that studying an entire codebase, then recreating its functionality, falls over the line to the creation of a derived work.
How about keeping your software commercial, but also source-available (lower-case open-source) and both freely-redistributable and customizable. Your users get the benefits of OSS, and you are likely get some good cheap patches, but you can also require payment for every copy and derived version.
If you did it this way, is your software of a nature that your users are likely to cheat you, either by not paying, or by reverse-engineering their own versions using non-cleanroom methods?
Yes, don't dual-license. Just set different prices for different types and sizes of users, and attract contributors by allowing them to share in package income.
With sufficient digital computing power you can
simulate any analog system, to any degree of accuracy.
Deterministic, stochastic, and even non-deterministic/chaotic/quantum
(though I doubt this will be required).
Digital gives you enormous flexibility, and will be the
tool of choice for reverse-engineering the brain.
I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity. There are a dozen word processors you can choose from, a dozen different types computers, a dozen types of memory to choose from, hundreds of flash game sites (which are free, but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those). So for the most part, things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them (the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them. I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).
Commoditization is usually a surface phenomenon. When you start using things you always find little niggles and poor design choices that you have to learn to live with, because you didn't have the knowledge and time to choose a more suitable product.
There is so much potential for marketers to make their products stand out, and even deserve a premium, by giving their potential customers more help, rather than just agenda-pushing ads and blurb.
This help can be provided by independent consumer advisors. There are ways for product makers to encourage and reward the people who help their customers, without compromising the independence of these advisors.
There is an easy solution to this problem. Take advertising back into your own hands. Don't sign up for some stupid ad network to shovel punch the monkey ads all your site. Forming a relationship with companies your viewers are actually interested in will deliver better results for the advertisers and for your visitors.
Many sites eschew a direct relationship with advertisers
to increase their real and perceived independence.
I take it you're not a programmer. All you need is to authenticate that there is a vote which is from a user (who has not yet voted) long enough to add it to the table of votes, analogous to when the user is holding their completed ballot but has not yet placed it in the box. Once the vote is placed in a box/added to the table it cannot be reconciled with the user who placed it there.
This separation can't be guaranteed when it's all done remotely.
The authorities may say they're doing it, but they may really
be making the connections that it's possible for them to make.
The key is to give them nothing that allows them to
make a connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, they need to find a new, workable revenue model for an age where people do not want to pay just to be informed about the world. The news itself must be subsidized by something else, some related business where the newspapers can use their reputation for quality journalism to boost sales. What that business might be, I do not personally know, but if it cannot be discovered, then you are right: journalists are going to be begging for money to do their work.
That related business is journalism that is more concretely worth something to its readers: helping them choose the most suitable product.
In the past the only reward publishers could (legitimately) get from this type of journalism was by selling ads around it, plus any money they made on the cover price. But as information distribution has opened up, ads-around-content is no longer as lucrative as it once was, particularly when they are cuting their own throats by making it more and more intrusive.
But lately more publications (including Slashdot) have been getting into the affiliate sales game, which gains them good revenue for some product-related journalism at the expense of involving their journalism in the sales process.
An alternative to affiliate sales is to make it possible for a product purchaser to identify which sources of advice helped them choose their product, and have those sources rewarded with either a share of any cash rebate the purchaser receives, or with a bonus payment from the product's maker. This allows publishers to be paid more often, including when they give a product a bad review.
As has always been the case, such journalism can subsidise hard news.
It's true that it'd be infeasible to have to authorise payment for each article, but you could have a system where you bless certain publications to charge you a particular amount for each item, valid for a particular period. Then you've just got to manage this white-list.
Newspapers are already cheap, but they are not free. But they aren't micro-priced either. Whether it is buying a paper at the stand or subscribing months at a time, there is a valid value proposition there.
Yes, big media will be loath to replace their bundling with item-based micropayments, because that would devalue their masthead and put them on an equal footing with smaller competitors. So they'll first try to make their bundles bigger (perhaps through a cartel).
If you can't determine the value of news until after you read it, isn't any system based on pay-by-value voluntary?
Here's one voluntary solution and one compulsory solution. These only work for material that assists people in some direct or indirect way with product purchases. Such material can of course cross-subsidise hard news, as has always been the case.
Voluntary: Make it possible for purchasers to make donations to creators of material that has helped them choose the product they have bought, and allow these donations to be paid out of a manufacturer's cash rebate. Donations are more likely in this case because the donor is being prompted during a cashback claim to give a portion of something that's not yet in their pocket. No credit card required.
Compulsory: Allow publishers to charge a firm fee for an item, but allow this fee to be recovered from subsequent cash rebates the reader receives. The reader pays nothing up-front.
If you don't read pulp crap then it's impossible to read that much. Quality literature consumes much more brain power than pulp fiction and is tiresome to read. Pulp, romance, horror, J.K. Rowling, ect. are just as strenuous on the brain as watching Two and a Half Men, so you can do it all day. Load her kindle up with Shakespeare and Steinbeck and she'll have to take breaks.
Quite true, unless you're really just skimming in order to get another book under your belt. In which case, why bother?
Even middle-brow literature like Stephen King should be taken it slowly to properly absorb the characters, settings, and ideas.
And you will get every site to sign onto this? Do you think there won't be competing companies doing this single sign-on thing? To get to everything, you'll have to have a "single" sign-on with 15 different companies, different balances with each one, and so on. It will never work.
I suppose he'll be relying on being the first, and will include a lot of sign-up and renewal incentives. He'll also be working to make his content more unique, with more analysis and opinion over straight news. People will pay to be comforted by what they want to hear.
Think of the Slashdot model: You purchase so many page views. These would be able to be used on any News Ltd. or affiliated site (with possible multipliers for premium sites). Newly registered users who enter a credit card number get $10 free credit. Max 3 accounts per CC.
But some will survive, and anyone who wants to know what's happening will have to pay them. Right Rupert?
Or read a summary on a blog or other site that doesn't pay News Corp syndication fees.
It will all come down to a fight over the definition of derivative works, and legislative support for quicker take-down of material with disputed copyright.
There will also be a focus on articles that can't be easily summarised. More analysis and opinion.
Ad revenue must eventually track ad effectiveness. If everyone did what you suggest, there would be no ad revenue.
The free content you consume relies on those who are still influenced by advertising. While I believe that the effectiveness of advertising is slowly diminishing, advertisers are sometimes willing for a campaign to cost much more than the sales it immediately generates, because it can bootstrap a critical-mass of market-presence and word-of-mouth.
That's why there hasn't been much of an attempt to fight ad-blockers. Not only is it counter-productive to force ads down people's throats, ads automatically become targeted to those who are open to that sort of influence. It's important therefore to use ad-blockers in a way that ad-views are not recorded.
If you define 'better person' as one who is happy, well adjusted and is nice to and trusting of others, then I doubt it. I'm pretty sure the more news you consume, the 'worse' you become.
If you define 'better person' as one who does critical analysis before casting a vote to improve society, then you may be right. However, I contend few people define 'better' in this way.
I mean, who would YOU rather hang out with?
Unfortunately, trusting blissful ignorance only gets you used and run over by the real world. And while it's true that knowledge and experience gradually beats the idealism and optimism out of you, it's right to fight cynicism. That is, you should use your wisdom for good rather than evil.
I like to hang out with a well-read person who uses this knowledge to take approprate risks, not a naive polyanna. Often ignorance leads to superstition, which can make one more closed and prejudiced.
I've never met a single person who would be willing to pay even $2 a month for access to a news site.
Yes, news that is sufficiently disposable and generic will struggle to be anything other than ad-supported. This is despite that fact that news really is worth paying for, because it cumulatively helps you understand how the world works, making you a better person. A micropayment system that reflected the a la carte nature of the Web would however be better than the subscription models that reflect the interests of the big media conglomerates.
But other sorts of information and opinion are more valuable, particularly those that relate to helping people choose the most suitable product to buy. The Wall Street Journal is of this type, but so are review sites.
Where users require regular ongoing advice, such a for shares, subscriptions can work, but not when the need is ad-hoc, such as for electronic equipment. Because advertising is unpopular (and hence low-paying), such sites are turning more and more to affiliate sales. But pairing advice and sales does create a conflict of interest for review sites, just as it does for full-service retailers.
It all depends on how much you trust the source. Amazon affiliate income gives Slashdot an incentive to publish positive book reviews, but we all trust Unkie Slash.
A willingness to donate your time and money is part of being a good person, even if there's plenty of kudos to be had.
However:
So until the socialist utopia arrives, we'll have to balance the paid and pro-bono aspects of our lives.
Because of its lack of ads, state-funded media is becoming more and more popular. But commercial media are starting to complain about unfair competition. Both the BBC and Australia's ABC have cancelled radio expansion plans after complaints.
When public subsidies were raised as an option to support struggling newspapers, the proprietors came out with a strong rejection. This was expressed as a desire to remain independent of government influence, but the more important reason was a dream of continued power and profitability.
But we do need the commercial press. Government subsidies can't hope to cover the variety of information people are interested in consuming.
Do-not-contact lists are killing off B2C cold-calling, but I'd say that it's still the #1 B2B marketing tool.
Cold-calling is very intrusive, but many type-A people-person executives respond better to more personal and interactive pitches, rather than slabs of text.
I wish there was a way to reclaim the email channel for legitimate marketing by paying the recipient to have the email delivered. Gmail is in a good position to do this.
Yes. Oh, and screw TV and magazine ads, too, media should learn to live on subscription fees and subsidies. If those things were banned, all companies would have to rely on people who are actively looking for products and services they provide -- through search engines, phone directories, etc.
Google provides pretty much the only advertisement model (ironically, Internet-based one) that does not constantly assault the recipients with things they DO NOT WANT.
I agree that the more interruptive forms of push marketing have had their day. Particularly TV ads, radio ads, banner ads, and telemarketing. I still think there is a role for printed ads and letters, because they are easily ignored or skimmed. But they are terribly wasteful.
Google's profits speak to the popularity of Search Marketing. But paid-placement search marketing still delivers information with an agenda, both in prominence and content. Even better would be the ability to easily find, use, and compensate independent category experts who can help you choose the most suitable product.
As you mention, the best way to fund these are fees (what do you mean by subsidies?). But people are becoming more reluctant to pay for information and advice, either preferring advertising, or preferring to block ads and let the non-blockers pay for their service until the system collapses. So the alternatives are the Facebook et al. model of advice from amateurs, or some better way to fund professional helpers than ads, affiliate links, or product placements that turn them into salespeople. I'm currently involved in one attempt to solve this problem.
I just think it's possible to add both freedom to redistribute and rewards for external contributions to this, while keeping it commercial. These could really grow the whole ecosystem.
I don't, because the next guy might have no problem with redistributing it at a price point of $0. I cannot compete with $0 no matter what I do.
The idea is to let them redistribute it for $0, but the licence requires recipients of any copy or derived version to pay you, the original creator. There are ways to keep people honest: payment gives access to support ticketing, public acknowledgement, etc.
Three of my four commercial products are built on LAMP, so the source is already available.
Even though some free-software advocates think it's nothing, allowing your customers to customize their deployments is a great benefit. Don't start using a script obfuscater.
I just think it's possible to add both freedom to redistribute and rewards for external contributions to this, while keeping it commercial. These could really grow the whole ecosystem.
The other (not released yet) is a game, and I think for obvious reasons it's not going to be open-source..
It this because the source would help players cheat?
Does that mean that a legitimate business should never send unsolicited letters and flyers in the post, and should never cold-call? These are core tools of the marketing world.
Or is email different, destroyed as a legitimate marketing communication tool by black-hat spammers?
If they re-wrote it, using the GPL'd code as a guidline or reference but did not copy anything directly from it, then the only thing that can prevent them from doing so is a patent. Copyright only applies when you are copying a work, not when you are creating a similar but different work.
Are you sure of that? Non-clean-room reverse engineering suggests creation of a derived work. It's a grey area, because all research draws on other work. But I'd think that studying an entire codebase, then recreating its functionality, falls over the line to the creation of a derived work.
How about keeping your software commercial, but also source-available (lower-case open-source) and both freely-redistributable and customizable. Your users get the benefits of OSS, and you are likely get some good cheap patches, but you can also require payment for every copy and derived version.
If you did it this way, is your software of a nature that your users are likely to cheat you, either by not paying, or by reverse-engineering their own versions using non-cleanroom methods?
Yes, don't dual-license. Just set different prices for different types and sizes of users, and attract contributors by allowing them to share in package income.
With sufficient digital computing power you can simulate any analog system, to any degree of accuracy. Deterministic, stochastic, and even non-deterministic/chaotic/quantum (though I doubt this will be required).
Digital gives you enormous flexibility, and will be the tool of choice for reverse-engineering the brain.
I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity. There are a dozen word processors you can choose from, a dozen different types computers, a dozen types of memory to choose from, hundreds of flash game sites (which are free, but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those). So for the most part, things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them (the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them. I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).
Commoditization is usually a surface phenomenon. When you start using things you always find little niggles and poor design choices that you have to learn to live with, because you didn't have the knowledge and time to choose a more suitable product.
There is so much potential for marketers to make their products stand out, and even deserve a premium, by giving their potential customers more help, rather than just agenda-pushing ads and blurb.
This help can be provided by independent consumer advisors. There are ways for product makers to encourage and reward the people who help their customers, without compromising the independence of these advisors.
There is an easy solution to this problem. Take advertising back into your own hands. Don't sign up for some stupid ad network to shovel punch the monkey ads all your site. Forming a relationship with companies your viewers are actually interested in will deliver better results for the advertisers and for your visitors.
Many sites eschew a direct relationship with advertisers to increase their real and perceived independence.
I take it you're not a programmer. All you need is to authenticate that there is a vote which is from a user (who has not yet voted) long enough to add it to the table of votes, analogous to when the user is holding their completed ballot but has not yet placed it in the box. Once the vote is placed in a box/added to the table it cannot be reconciled with the user who placed it there.
This separation can't be guaranteed when it's all done remotely.
The authorities may say they're doing it, but they may really be making the connections that it's possible for them to make.
The key is to give them nothing that allows them to make a connection.