Bad Business Advice: Always Look To Charge For Content

from the if-you-want-to-fail... dept

A few people have sent in the NY Times story supposedly about the "free vs. paid" debate that quotes some business school professors giving what appears to me to be awful advice:

Eric J. Johnson, a professor at Columbia Business School, said he had been amazed by media companies repeatedly adding free online services, like on-demand video. "Before you add something to your site, you should say that if consumers really want it, that should be part of a package that you could charge for."

That's looking only at one side of the equation and is doing so in a dangerously short-sighted way. Rather than saying "hey, if people want this, we should charge for it," why not actually look at the larger ecosystem? Why not recognize the added value that can be added if it is free and how that can enable other business models? The problem is that professors like Johnson are basically pushing the idea that a media company is a "content company," rather than a company that's building a community. It focuses on the belief that the content is the final product. It's not. It's never been the final product. If you have open and available content, that allows users to make it more valuable by sharing it, spreading it, annotating it, commenting on it and building off of it. You can't do that when you put it behind a paywall. Content behind a paywall is less valuable to most people. So why would people pay for content that is less valuable?

The problem is focusing so much on the product rather than on the real benefit. Having the content free enables so much else. And if you focus on charging, all it does is open up an opportunity for others to step in and provide that value, and sap away the "paying" users. Focusing just on the pay question and ignoring the value side of the equation is a recipe for trouble.

So, rather than the NY Times "debate," perhaps check out what the site Hypebot did, which was note that the "debate" is already over. It's not about whether or not there should be "free" content, but that the economics and the market are clear: it will be free. So, with that in mind, it put together a whole series of thoughts from different folks about ways to embrace "free" as a part of larger business models. There's plenty of good stuff to read there.

Glenn Peoples, at Billboard, also picked up on the discussion, which is great, though I'd like to challenge one thing he wrote, complaining about Chris Anderson's take on "free":

Anderson did not draw enough distinction between marginal cost -- which in the case of digital distribution is zero -- and average cost. When Anderson writes that "the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing," what he means is the marginal cost of distributing that digital information. There are significant costs in recording music. The cost of creating a brand and inducing awareness, other considerations Anderson understates, are both unavoidable and considerable. An insignificant cost of creating and distributing one more digital file does not reflect the amount of investment to be recouped.

While I don't want to speak for Chris, he and I have certainly talked about these things, and I believe that Peoples is misstating Chris' point on all of this. As we've discussed here before, no one is ignoring the cost of creation or the cost of those other things. We're simply stating the economic fact that none of those things matter in terms of final price. This isn't how we want things to be. It's how economics works. Price is influenced by marginal cost. That's it. Price is not influenced by fixed costs (or average costs). That's not because of what Chris says or what I say. It's how a market works, no matter how anyone thinks things should be.

That doesn't mean you ignore the fixed costs or the average costs. Obviously, you do need to pay attention to those for the sake of making sure there's an ROI where you need it. But that's where you look at your overall offering rather than focusing so narrowly on just the content. So if you can take the content (as you can) and make it free, and use that to drive up interest and value in other scarce products you can sell, then that's where it matters. And, as for the question of "the costs in recording music," we (here at Techdirt) have certainly addressed that at great length: the creation of content is in fact a scarce good. And you can charge for it -- and many have. Jill Sobule is a perfect example of this, getting people to pay to create a new album. Other models work as well, including having brands help pay for the creation of music. There are lots of models that work -- and they don't conflict with or negate the fact (not opinion) that the content itself will have its price driven towards free.

Filed Under: business, business models, charging, content, economics, free

If You Want To Charge For News, Can You Answer These Questions?

from the please? dept

Want to know why the old school newspapers are failing one after another? Maybe it's because they're spending all their time rewriting the same column over and over again. The latest is David Carr of the NY Times who has written the same column that has been written about fifty times in the past 6 months by others, saying that newspapers should all collude, stop giving away content for free, force Google to pay to link to them, among some other nonsense that makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Steve Yelvington, however, has put up a good list of eight challenges that any newspaper or reporter who wants to charge for news should need to respond to in full. His list is focused on those who want to charge for "local" news, but I think it mostly applies to all news:

1. The painful lessons of experience. You might want to look into the history of attempts by general news sites to get consumers to pay for access. Did you actually think we hadn't thought of it, and tried it? Your ignorance of the field and of history is one of the things that makes the online guys reject everything you say. Do you need a list? The burden of research here is on you; it's your idea, after all. But I can tell you where to start.

2. The problem of scale (volume). It takes scale to make paid content work, and you don't have the volume you think you have. Quit making up wishful percentages based on your totally bogus monthly unique-user count ("well, if we get just 10 percent of our 85 zillion unique users to pay"). If you're going to engage in wishful thinking, base it on the cohort of individuals who visit your website more than three times a week. You will be shocked, and dismayed. I've been saying this for years: How can you get them to pay if you can't even get them to visit frequently when it's free?

3. The problem of scale (breadth). The idea of premium paid content (to generate reader revenue) plus free commodity content (to support an ad model) is alluring, but be honest with yourself. Local sites don't have the breadth of content to simultaneously support a paid premium content model, while maintaining enough free pages to harvest the advertising benefits of the open model.

4. Relative strength of the geotargeted advertising model. Ultimately the idea of paid content goes to war against the idea of ad-supported content. In local markets, the ad model is stronger than in global markets. There is, and always will be, a gross surplus of ad inventory on the Internet, and that drives CPMs into the sand. But actual deliverable geotargeted advertising -- and please understand that I'm talking about a reality that includes the entire sales support system, not theory -- is an entirely different matter. Local advertising sold by local sales forces is a substantial revenue stream, and if you're not tapping into that, it's your own fault.

5. Competition. There are plenty of competitors and would-be competitors just waiting for you to strangle your own website so they can step in and steal your future. The larger the market, the more this is true. In some relatively small, isolated markets you may be able to get away with it. For awhile.

6. Lack of unique content, coupled with a false sense of being unique. When you've had a virtual monopoly for decades, you grow arrogant and develop blind spots about your own weaknesses. From the viewpoint of the consumer, you're not nearly as unique and special as you think. And you've exacerbated this problem with your poor pay scales historically, and more recently your vicious cutting aimed at higher-salary veterans.

7. Support costs. If somebody drops 50 cents into a newsbox and it won't open, they just go away mad. If somebody is paying for access to your website and it won't work, they're going to call and suck up 12 dollars of staff time. You have no idea what you're getting into. Computers are evil, perverse devices aimed at driving humans crazy.

8. Your own staff. Your online staff hates the idea and they'll do everything they can to undermine it. Yeah, you can fire them. Why don't you get a table saw and cut off the fingers of your right hand while you're doing it? I've seen this happen time after time as newspapers consolidate print and online staffs, and the "formerly known as print" people conspire to expel the "formerly known as online" people. The result is a great leap backward. It's self-destructive.

I'd add another important factor to this list: What value are you providing that makes it worth paying you? That's the question I keep asking. Newspaper folks seem to think that their content is magically so valuable that everyone will start paying if they charge. There's no evidence that's true at all. So what value are they adding beyond all the other content out there that makes it worth actually paying for?

Filed Under: charging, news, newspapers, questions, steve yelvington

Online Publications Still Think They Can Get Away With Charging For Access

from the not-unless-you're-something-special dept

As various news publications struggle to find new business models, they keep jumping back to the idea of "if we could just get people to pay..." And, then they look at the very, very, very few success stories online of charging for content (such as the Wall Street Journal) and think "hey, we can do that..." Except, they can't, for the most part. The WSJ gets away with it because the level of their reporting really is heads and shoulders above others on certain topics -- and it happens to be on topics which matter significantly to many people (i.e., they can make money based on that info). Unless you have both very specialized and highly valuable content that is not well covered elsewhere, you're going to have trouble charging. And, of course, even then you might have trouble. Cutting off people through a subscription wall presents additional problems, such as convincing any new readers you're actually worth it compared to all the free content out there -- and, most importantly, staying a part of the relevant conversation. These days, that's a lot more important than the content itself (though few newspapers recognize it yet). Also, focusing on charging simply opens up an opportunity for others to create similarly compelling and valuable content for free... and siphoning away your paying readership.

So, it's pretty surprising that anyone thinks that U.S. News and World Report has even the slightest chance of making it work, but folks at the magazine apparently think people will pay $20/year for an online subscription. It's difficult to see how this would work -- considering that there's plenty of (free) competition that covers similar material (and already has a better reputation for it). It seems like a last gasp effort by a U.S. News that has greatly trimmed back over the past couple of years.

Filed Under: business models, charging, magazines, online publications
Companies: us news

Charging Is Good... But Only If You Charge For The Right Thing

from the otherwise,-it's-a-disaster dept

With various companies trying to rush to put in place better business models thanks to the financial crash, Farhad Manjoo over at Slate has written an article suggesting that various free online services just start charging. Much of the article is based on the beliefs of the guys who run 37Signals, the online software company, who are strong believers in charging a reasonable price for simple software. To some extent, they're correct, but in many ways, it's exactly the wrong message.

For example, Manjoo suggests that Facebook should just start charging users who have over 200 friends something like $5/month. His admits that there will be revolts and anger, but some percentage will pay, and that will create a nice revenue stream. Manjoo is a smart guy, and I usually agree with him on stuff, but on this, he's way off. The problem is that this analysis is a static one, not taking into account what happens next. And, when it comes to social networks like Facebook, we know exactly what happens next. That's because a few years back, when Friendster was the biggest social network on the planet (during another "down" time in the economy), there were rumors that it was going to start charging, and those rumors fueled the growth of MySpace. I still remember getting Friendster messages over and over again, telling people to sign up with MySpace because Friendster was about to start charging.

Sure, Facebook might be able to retain some users who would pay, but many others would flock to the next big thing, which would remain free... and Facebook would look something like Friendster today. Perhaps it would be making money, but most of the users will have moved on to something else.

So while it's important to come up with real business models that bring in actual revenue, you can't do so by charging for things that no one expects to pay for (or that they've been trained not to pay for). Instead, you have to focus on real scarcities, not artificial ones, or your business model is going to go nowhere. Saying that you should "charge" is nothing revolutionary. But it's misleading. The real trick is in understanding what to charge for -- which is what we've been discussing here for years. It's too bad Manjoo didn't explore that angle, because that's where the really interesting business models of tomorrow will be found.

Filed Under: business models, charging, economics, free