Infographic: People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option
from the reason-to-buy dept
Back when we first launched the Insider Shop, we made two PDF ebooks available at any price you choose: Mike's Approaching Infinity (on new business models and the economics of abundance) and our Sky Is Rising report on the state of the entertainment industries. More recently, we launched three fiction titles by our own Tim Geigner—Digilife, Echelon and Midwasteland—also available on a pay-what-you-want basis. They were an instant hit, and we're in the process of preparing new ePub versions.
The thing we noticed right away was that a lot of people were choosing to pay, even though you can download all the books for free. Almost half of all book downloads were paid, with most people choosing the default $5 per book—even when buying four or five books at once—and several going above and beyond, with a few even paying $20 for a single title.
At this point, there's plenty of evidence that people will gladly, even eagerly, pay to support creators despite being given the option of getting something for free—and we're glad to add the success of our Insider Shop ebooks to the list. For those who want a closer look at the numbers, I put together a quick infographic:
Thanks to everyone who has downloaded our ebooks, whether you paid $0 or $20 or anything in between! If you haven't gotten your copies yet, head on over to the Insider Shop and check them out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ebooks, free, pay what you want, support
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
# of downloads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike and Tim would never say this, but 51% paid nothing? For shame. Have you read this blog? Oh nevermind, I'm sure it was AJ, OOTB, and Bob, downloading tons of copies in order to skew the results in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't believe in paying for content. They believe in picking fights, and they sort of believe in people other then themselves being forced to do things.
They're bullies, not advocates. Their posts are filled with fiction intended only to get attention and upset people. They don't understand the subject and they don't care.
It's funny how many trolls come onto TD and other similar sites and confuse passion with weakness. "If you care enough to respond to me over and over, I've won." Not if the subject is important, chumley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They don't believe in paying for content.
I spend lots of money on content and the arts. Probably more than most, if I had to guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personally, I have been a fan of the site for many years and always looking for new ways to support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wont download it, I have loads of books to read on my kindle and honestly dont need any more for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just to be clear, this is exactly how we feel too. Please, everyone, pay or don't pay, whatever your reasons! We are happy for the books to get out there. Approaching Infinity has been freely available as a series of Techdirt posts for years, Sky Is Rising was dedicated to the public domain on its release, and Tim has always emailed free copies of his novels to anyone who asks.
When we say Pay What You Want, we mean it! And we hope you enjoy the books!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might be worth noting that one piece of evidence I remember from Radiohead's experiment with In Rainbows was that there were multiple "sales" to the same people. That is, people downloaded for free, then listened to the album, realised they liked it, then downloaded again for a paid amount in order to compensate the artist. In other words, people were previewing the content before deciding what it was worth and what to pay. Nothing wrong with that.
Either way, there's really nothing wrong with downloading for free if that option is available. Anyone who offers such a deal is going to aware that many people will take the free option, perhaps even a majority of people. But just because they don't pay up front, that doesn't mean that those people won't pay in future - another reason why the content industry's insistence on suing people is counter-productive. The trick isn't to get 100% of people to pay, the trick is to build a business where the freebie downloads aren't necessarily a negative. If the revenue generated by this model is higher than the amount they would have made through traditional sales or by selling locked-down $20 eBooks, who cares how many people got a free copy on the side?
"Oh nevermind, I'm sure it was AJ, OOTB, and Bob, downloading tons of copies in order to skew the results in their favor."
Judging by ootb's obsessive linking to a piece of factual information about Mike as though that's some kind of negative, I wouldn't be surprised if they did this thinking they were "costing" Mike money every time they downloaded. Such is their lack of understanding about the realities of concepts discussed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. I haven't downloaded a single one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the plus side, their stupidity is entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then they're going to ignore everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link to image not working
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, I'll comment. Good for TD for bringing in some money with their "free" model. I like it, and I know already that it works for some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ePub!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll scream out how TD's own supporters can't even pay a single penny, churning out a 51% loss of potential revenue.
Chris Dodd's probably penning his blog right now, fully prepared to ignore the obvious.
Sherman's probably on the phone right now to whoever's in his pockets, readying another SOPA-like bill using this data as "facts" (he's going to add millions on the number, so be prepared).
But if there's anything I'd like to say to all this, it's...
... you're welcome, TD, and thank you for standing by the practice of CwF+RtB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you see no difference between legal and illegal downloads?
You may be right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll let that one sink in for a moment . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What kind of fucked logic is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That free sample offered in the grocery store? If I accept that I'm a free loading loser?
Let's see your answers, or please claim you're successful troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: such hypotheses have already been tested
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi Mr. Anonymous Coward. My name is Josh. I'm big into infringing. I self-identify as a pirate (see my TD profile pic). I was downloading things illegally using bittorrent just last night. I also actively encourage others to break copyright law, as I see it as unnecessary in today's world and harming the distribution of culture and ideas which could be achieved for almost no cost.
Oh, and I bought all 5 of the ebooks in the TD shop for $5 each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You simply bear out my assertion about how amoral and entitled this community is."
You heard it here first folks - if you get a free coffee at your next community meeting with the full support of those holding the meeting, you're amoral and entitled! Don';t let you immoral nature be seen next time you pick up a free sample at the supermarket, and god forbid you take advantage of the free Duke Nukem 3D at GOG this week without buying something else from them - it's satanic to take a free copy without paying!
Yes, you do sound this stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither of which I could care less about - there's a sticks and stones thing.
Something that does bother me about his comment:
If he is considering copyright law, or following all laws, as moral, then he should have labelled me as "immoral" and not "amoral" - but I imagine the subtle difference between those terms would be lost on him.
Strictly speaking, I have a completely different set of morals than the AC - one of which is that it is immoral to restrict access to culture, information, and ideas when it would have no cost to provide it (or allow someone else to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ A non Cow 6:08
if someone gives you a GIFT, do you then consider yourself a 'freeloader' ?
the cruel and heartless run our society today, you should fit in just fine...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given only the choice to pay, or go without, these people would merely go without, blissfully unaware of this content. Pay what you want allows content to be consumed as widely as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm officially instituting a "pay what you want to comment" program here on Techdirt. Commenting are free, but this AC is an amoral asshole if he doesn't pay $1 each time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I were to take a look at it, I can see that this is a good thing. While on a larger scale it will have an effect because even the smallest things can make a big difference. Sure it probably won't matter to certain audiences, like the MPAA or RIAA since they have the same mindset as you, but if you get the right audience to show this to, then they are willing to go along with this plan.
This may not have an impact now, but this is a step in the right direction. There are others out there that are doing this and they are getting people. I am even going to adopt some of what TechDirt is doing here and apply it to my own works, simply because I do want to have my own audience and I do want people to read my books, while giving me some money if they like my work! I'm not some jerk who goes around telling people that they're criminals for making copies of my stories without my permission! That's completely stupid!
And besides, you're an anonymous coward that's calling us a bunch of freeloaders when you're missing out on something good! Why should we take you seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You work hard for the trust and love of others and they will pay you, that is what everybody here told you and your kind a lot and you don't seem to grasp the concept yet.
And they proved.
You work hard, create a following and those people will support you no matter what.
On the other hand if you treat people like dummies they will act like ones and get everything for free without regard to your dear feelings or laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
2nd, if there were "lots" it would not be easy to skew the results to 51%. -- Nor do I WISH the experiment to "fail"; I'm sympathetic to authors who only want some gruel, but not to grifting weenies getting millions off starving authors; and as said before, anyone is free to give away their own material. I even refrained from advising knee-pads for the required fervent praying, so as to not at all affect results (with my huge influence).
3rd, @ "AJ, OOTB, and Bob pay nothing for the copyrighted articles on this blog and they pay nothing to support the professionals who maintain these threads." -- Huh? Is the material here under active copyright after all, MIke? Or has that boob totally missed your philosophy besides statement that you're (somehow) making a living by writing (somewhere)? Been telling ya, need a Features statement of bullet points of your beliefs: though I've tried for two years to glean them, your positions remain vague.
4th, I too would like a more precise number than "a lot". That's just weaselly, and leaves me even more in doubt. Bet if were large, they'd state it. BTW, as usual the fanboy-trolls can only see ONE side: results were more likely skewed by true believers buying "lots", say five at a dollar each, plus running up the peak to all of $20. We don't know, and obviously Mike ain't gonna tell us any totals. We're left with Techdirt's standard baseless accusations and dimensionless "data".
5th, why does the graphic only cover 2 days, to Dec 7? Will you at all tell us how 2nd week sales went? -- We could see if the postulated try-before-buy effect is real.
6th, only "BillW" mentions buying, and (echoing an above comment in plain language) if 51% free is the response on TD (one might say, by the choir), then logout for the last time, Mike: you ain't having any useful effect.
BTW: who'll put all those up on TPB to "promote" them? I actually checked there for two of Timmy's books, and they ain't on. Why won't someone share them? ... Or are we doubters right after all: that's a SURE way for Timmy to NOT get a cent from them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
And an important thing to remember is that for every musician or actor or author that is successful there are thousands and thousands that are working in coffee shops and McDonald's for a living. Dont think just because you have made a good living from being an author in the past you are going to be successful in the future. Previously publishers chose who would be successful, now anyone can be if they have the right business plan for them and they accept that things have changed. I can see the legacy authors the Clive Cusslers and Stephen Kings being negatively affected, but some new authors can and should be able to make a success if they invest there time in expanding there knowledge about the internet or get someone who really knows what he is doing to market them on the internet. And remember success is not necessarily making a lot of money, to many success is if they are well known and people write about how they enjoyed reading there books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
1) This is an instance where you had the opportunity to show up and at least admit that you could be wrong. You're not doing that, so you're just showing yourself up to be the troll we all know and love.
2) The weenies you speak of, those would be the middle-men, yes? The publishing houses, the recording studios and their ilk? Because they 'steal' a hell of a lot more from artists than any infringement ever could. (Huge influence my ass.)
3) Copyright is automatic, as you well know. Otherwise the barb was rather pointless, but in the spirit of you and others accusing everyone who posts here of being a pirate.
4) I agree that numbers would be nice, but from there you just devolve into a little jerk, again.
5) No idea where you got the notion it only covers two days. It says 'based on ebook sales as of December 7,' which says nothing of when it started. You are suggesting that the Insider Shop started offering ebooks on the 5th, and never once before that? Care to back that up?
6) More baseless supposition attacking stated facts.
Of course, in your world everything will show up on TPB to be pirated away without a care, even if it's already being offered legally for free.
Keep being classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
Sure you might have a point and you sound like a legitimate supporter, but will it kill you to at least cut the nonsense out and speak like a sane person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters yapping at shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How much total was received?
There could be a total of like 10 downloads, in which case the sample size is too small to be meaningful. It would be more appropriate to give us the actual numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
Whereas only someone who lacks even a basic understanding of algebra would think you can determine absolute totals from relative proportions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
Unfortunately without some kind of total amount there is no way to figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
I could do this, but the math is so complex that I've patented it and would not feel comfortable sharing the algorithm without charging an appropriate licensing fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much total was received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much total was received?
What would full sales figures provide, other than an excuse for the trolls to claim the whole thing is a failure (which they would do whether it was 1, 100 or 100000 downloads)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]