Comments on: From Staid Content to Paid Content http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/ The official AllPeers blog Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:56:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Alex Rowland http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4260 Alex Rowland Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:53:19 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4260 The problem is that pay-per-view models assume that the content is so compelling that it is going to demand both time and cash. It's just too easy for the consumer to see the thing costs money and spend their time elsewhere and spend no cash while being equally informed/entertained. NYT's is a classic example. Maybe a few people will buy access to the actual article once they go to a paid model, but most will just wait for someone to read that same content, paraphrase and comment. NYT will get some paying customers, but the vast majority will get 90% (or more) of the value for free from these secondary sources. Especially when these sources add value (unique perspective, filtering important material, providing other opinions, etc.) The problem in open networks is that it's so easy to just wait for the same content to show up for free somewhere than to get access immediately for some fee. Advertising will dominate, not because people love ads, but because it will be one of the few ways in which content owners can actually get paid. I don't consider myself cheap (I spend $250+ in satellite, internet, netflix, etc.), but I can't remeber the last time I spent a cent for acces to content (text, audio, or video) online. It's just too easy to click that mouse and go elsewhere. The problem is that pay-per-view models assume that the content is so compelling that it is going to demand both time and cash. It’s just too easy for the consumer to see the thing costs money and spend their time elsewhere and spend no cash while being equally informed/entertained.

NYT’s is a classic example. Maybe a few people will buy access to the actual article once they go to a paid model, but most will just wait for someone to read that same content, paraphrase and comment. NYT will get some paying customers, but the vast majority will get 90% (or more) of the value for free from these secondary sources. Especially when these sources add value (unique perspective, filtering important material, providing other opinions, etc.) The problem in open networks is that it’s so easy to just wait for the same content to show up for free somewhere than to get access immediately for some fee.

Advertising will dominate, not because people love ads, but because it will be one of the few ways in which content owners can actually get paid. I don’t consider myself cheap (I spend $250+ in satellite, internet, netflix, etc.), but I can’t remeber the last time I spent a cent for acces to content (text, audio, or video) online. It’s just too easy to click that mouse and go elsewhere.

]]> By: Matt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4258 Matt Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:17:28 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4258 I agree with the shift online, of course, but I strongly contest the notion that content will have to comply with the "prevalent business model of the Web." Yes, in some cases advertisting "will be indistinguishable in its value proposition from the content itself", in fact, that's precisely what I hypothesized in my "Ad Lib" post yesterday. But I also believe that a lot of content will be available on a subscription or pay-per-download basis. There is already a clear trend in this direction (iTunes Stores, Yahoo's recent music service, the NYT and many publications switching to pay-per-download for some content, etc.). On the internet, the costs of advertising (in terms of time wasted, polluted enjoyment and sullied impartiality) will be more transparent, so there will be more motivation for people to pay this cost in some other way if this makes sense to them. I agree with the shift online, of course, but I strongly contest the notion that content will have to comply with the “prevalent business model of the Web.” Yes, in some cases advertisting “will be indistinguishable in its value proposition from the content itself”, in fact, that’s precisely what I hypothesized in my “Ad Lib” post yesterday.

But I also believe that a lot of content will be available on a subscription or pay-per-download basis. There is already a clear trend in this direction (iTunes Stores, Yahoo’s recent music service, the NYT and many publications switching to pay-per-download for some content, etc.). On the internet, the costs of advertising (in terms of time wasted, polluted enjoyment and sullied impartiality) will be more transparent, so there will be more motivation for people to pay this cost in some other way if this makes sense to them.

]]> By: Alex Rowland http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4257 Alex Rowland Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:03:31 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4257 I actually completely disagree. The problem is that you are assuming that everyone will keep getting their TV through existing distribution channels (cable/satellite). This is simply not the case. Video is going to move to an Internet (ie open) distribution model within the next decade. Once it's on the Internet you'll find it complies with prevalent business model of the Web, as in free and ad supported. I agree that broadcast advertising is not focused on my interests. It is designed for the common denominator because it is being broadcast over a closed network to millions of consumers. But do you think this will stay true once video migrates to the Web? Open distribution combines inexpensive delivery with bidirectional communication. It favors business models that focus on the individual rather than the mass market. Internet video advertising won’t be the 30 second spot; it’ll be integrated into the content in such a way that removing it without damaging the value of the content will be more trouble than it’s worth. But we won’t care because the ad will be highly targeted to our individual interests. Ideally, it will be indistinguishable in its value proposition from the content itself. In other words, the ad and the content will be the same thing. I actually completely disagree. The problem is that you are assuming that everyone will keep getting their TV through existing distribution channels (cable/satellite). This is simply not the case. Video is going to move to an Internet (ie open) distribution model within the next decade. Once it’s on the Internet you’ll find it complies with prevalent business model of the Web, as in free and ad supported.

I agree that broadcast advertising is not focused on my interests. It is designed for the common denominator because it is being broadcast over a closed network to millions of consumers. But do you think this will stay true once video migrates to the Web? Open distribution combines inexpensive delivery with bidirectional communication. It favors business models that focus on the individual rather than the mass market. Internet video advertising won’t be the 30 second spot; it’ll be integrated into the content in such a way that removing it without damaging the value of the content will be more trouble than it’s worth. But we won’t care because the ad will be highly targeted to our individual interests. Ideally, it will be indistinguishable in its value proposition from the content itself.

In other words, the ad and the content will be the same thing.

]]> By: MCM http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4254 MCM Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:20:20 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4254 I completely agree with you, but you overlook one issue: the Corn Flakes people will still want their brand to be #1, so they'll push and shove until they get their commercial in the shows anyway. Advertising serves an actual purpose, so even if you cut off its favourite outlet, it'll find a way into your life. That's the sad part of entertainment. I completely agree with you, but you overlook one issue: the Corn Flakes people will still want their brand to be #1, so they’ll push and shove until they get their commercial in the shows anyway. Advertising serves an actual purpose, so even if you cut off its favourite outlet, it’ll find a way into your life. That’s the sad part of entertainment.

]]> By: Matt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4253 Matt Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:05:37 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4253 <blockquote>But what’s the point in saying just “I agree”?</blockquote> Well then I would know that at least one person on earth agrees with me! Sometimes I wonder... Also, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

But what’s the point in saying just “I agree”?

Well then I would know that at least one person on earth agrees with me! Sometimes I wonder…

Also, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

]]> By: phil http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4252 phil Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:40:45 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4252 I and my partner pay UKP100+ annually to the BBC, who operate on precisely this basis. Hurrah for the BBC! Yes, the <a href="http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=48" rel="nofollow">non-commercial model</a> is <a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1496440,00.html" rel="nofollow">alive and well</a> at the BBC! (I still think it's the best (or least-worst) broadcasting model - but it still needs a bit of work.) I and my partner pay UKP100+ annually to the BBC, who operate on precisely this basis. Hurrah for the BBC! Yes, the non-commercial model is alive and well at the BBC!

(I still think it’s the best (or least-worst) broadcasting model - but it still needs a bit of work.)

]]> By: vlad http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4249 vlad Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:29:15 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4249 Well, I for one agree with many things you say. But what's the point in saying just "I agree"? :-) Well, I for one agree with many things you say. But what’s the point in saying just “I agree”? :-)

]]> By: Matt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4238 Matt Tue, 31 May 2005 21:06:27 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4238 Ehm, I meant "fee" of course. How come people only comment on my typos!? :-) Ehm, I meant “fee” of course. How come people only comment on my typos!? :-)

]]> By: vlad http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4236 vlad Tue, 31 May 2005 18:38:17 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2005/05/31/from-staid-content-to-paid-content/#comment-4236 <blockquote>free for programming that I actually want to see</blockquote> Very well said indeed. :o)

free for programming that I actually want to see

Very well said indeed. :o)

]]>