stories filed under: "products"

Audio Equipment Manufacturer Threatens Amazon Reseller With 'Mandatory Jail Time'

from the 'boil-in-the-torment-of-hell'-also-listed-as-possible-legal-recourse dept

Tue, Sep 16th 2014 5:49am — Tim Cushing

Part Whatever of our ongoing series How Not To Do Business brings us the story of a high-end audio device manufacturer badly misunderstanding how the Right of First Sale works. Velodyne, a Silicon Valley-located company, recently decided to take a very aggressive stance against an Amazon reseller who purchased a pair of earphones and resold them for a profit.

The full thread at Amazon's forums uncovers a lot of useful information during the 136-message sprawl but it all begins with a threatening pseudo-C&D email, loaded with legal threats that aren't actually legal and a strident mangling of English that suggests Velodyne's bogus legal threat division is outsourced.

Reseller 20YearsUSAF posted this to kick off the thread:

Hello,
This is a notice to inform the entity “20YearsUSAF” dealer and seller on Amazon.com and other internet selling locations to be discovered, of our engagement representing Velodyne Acoustics Inc, a privately owned company located in Morgan Hill, CA.

We are forthwith enlisted our services to protect price integrity by seeking public fractures and selling contract terms and illegal selling of products by unauthorized distributors and dealers on the internet in the USA and overseas. [ed. note: wat]

This is a notice of legal prosecution for illegal selling of Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. products and goods. You will be pursued and prosecuted unless you withdraw all products for sale by Velodyne immediately as of 9/13/14. “20YearsUSAF” selling will cease and desist for 2014-2019, under this name or other alias names or entities to be discovered by our agency. Discovery of “20YearsUSAF” using other alias identity to continue selling after this notice will compound fines and may incur mandatory jail sentencing of offenders. Continued unauthorized selling under this business name or alias name, as identified through discovery and witnesses, will put this business and its owners at risk of fines and legal prosecution.

Continue selling carries the penalty and minimum of $250,000 fine.

Sock and Bruster Internet Policing Services Inc. LPC, Legal Prosecution and Collection Agency

First off, there is no such thing as "illegal selling" of Velodyne products. Anyone can resell anything they purchased from Velodyne, which is what this seller did. What seems to be the issue (uncovered later in the threat) is that 20YearsUSAF bought one deeply discounted by Velodyne at its site and flipped it to turn a profit. Nothing illegal about that. (A forum member notes that similar notices have been sent to ebay resellers.)

The legal threats following that are for remedies that don't exist. Counterfeit goods may be illegal but reselling legitimate products isn't. Velodyne can't ban anyone from selling its products for a half-decade. It can prevent unauthorized resellers from listing themselves as "authorized" but that's it. The fact that the reseller is an Amazon reseller means it's up to Amazon to delist, ban or otherwise prevent 20YearsUSAF from using its platform. Velodyne can provided evidence why it should take this action but it can't just declare this in an email and consider it done. Needless to say, there are no "compound fines" or "mandatory jail sentencings" awaiting 20YearsUSAF.

Finally, "Sock and Bruster" is completely made up. This company does not exist.

Velodyne clearly doesn't like unauthorized resellers. It has a whole page on its website discussing this as well as a list of blackballed resellers it's uncovered that aren't actually authorized. 20YearsUSAF now heads that list. It's perfectly fine to restrict warranty coverage, etc. to only authorized resellers. What's not acceptable is declaring that anyone who hasn't signed an authorized reseller contract is forbidden from reselling items they purchased from Velodyne. As long as they're not misleading customers about their authorized/unauthorized status, there's not a damn thing Velodyne can do about it.

Here's where issue #2 comes into play. 20YearsUSAF listed this item as "new," which would lead buyers to believe it was still covered by the manufacturer's warranty. According to Velodyne's terms, only sales by authorized sellers receive that coverage. It's a problem, but one that should have been taken up by reporting the listing to Amazon rather than deploying the email nuke as the opening gambit. (20YearsUSAF has pulled similar listings and other forum members have told him/her to use "like new" in the future for goods like these, even if unopened, because many companies will not honor a transferred warranty.)

The next email 20YearsUSAF received was shorter but it wasn't any better.

"Since you bought the headphones from Velodyne, then you are an authorized dealer who signed a contract on selling policy. You are using an alias to hide your identity to perform illegal activity, and will be prosecuted as such. With the new laws, we finally have the clout to clean up these sales. There are new laws in place and more laws coming soon to protect Manufacturers from unauthorized selling.

My advice is to find another way to make a living, quickly."

The tactics shift. Now Velodyne is accusing the Amazon seller of violating a contractual agreement by selling headphones under a fake name. It references "new laws" but doesn't cite anything and, again, makes claims about "unauthorized selling" that really don't have anything to do with the issue at hand -- the right of first sale. And then there's the little threatening dig at the end.

It also seems to imply that simply purchasing an item from Velodyne enters you into a resale contract, which obviously isn't true. There's nothing about it in the Terms and Conditions Velodyne says you agree to when purchasing its products.

Finally, 20YearsUSAF received another email, this one much more conciliatory.

I am trying to make a go of a company that supports the livelihood of 80 employees. If our prices are undercut on a regular basis, then we lose integrity and retail stores will not put us in their stores to sell.

Velodyne is a small company, not like Sony or Bose. We don't have millions of dollars for marketing and our costs are high. Retail stores are going out of business and what we have left is selling online from our home grown website. This is our hope to sustain the business.

I'm glad you are not an unauthorized seller making a business out of selling Velodyne online.

It sounds like you work hard and I appreciate you writing back.

Even amidst the call for sympathy, a sense of misplaced entitlement remains. "If our prices are undercut on a regular basis" makes no sense when the buyer purchased headphones Velodyne itself offered at a reduced price. If that price doesn't make Velodyne money, then that's Velodyne's problem. Someone reselling it at a profit (thanks to the discount) doesn't take money away from it. Velodyne already gave up that money when it agreed to sell X product at Y price. It can't look at someone else's good fortune and decide that because the reseller made more money than it did, the reseller must be doing something "illegal."

A response from Amazon further settles the issue:

Greetings from Amazon Seller Support, Thank you for writing to us. I understand from your correspondence that another seller named Velodyne has asked you to remove the listings of their products which you are selling on Amazon.com. I would like to inform and assure you that as long as there is any copyright/trademark notice brought to Amazon's notice by the brand owner/manufacturer, all sellers are free to list whatever products they wish to on Amazon.com.

The only condition is to ensure that the products they are selling are exactly the same products that the listings had been created for. In this case there has nothing wrong been done from your end. Therefore there is absolutely no need for you to delete the listings.

Velodyne's decision to shoot first may end up hurting it more than an authorized dealer buying at wholesale and reselling the products under aliases would. Deciding to ride out the gut instinct that it was being abused by a contractual partner only served to make it look foolish and vindictive, especially when the legal "remedies" listed had no basis in reality. We're used to seeing bogus legal threats in which the threats themselves are bogus. We don't often see bogus legal threats where the potential punishments are conjured out of thin air and the laws that don't exist are quasi-cited in support.

If this isn't the case, and Velodyne just doesn't like people reselling goods at a price higher than it sells them for, then it should probably exit the retail business -- or at least stop offering price breaks it can't afford.

If Velodyne has the suspicion that one or more of its authorized sellers are violating their contractual agreements, it needs to keep it to itself until it has enough supporting evidence. Then it needs to realize that outside of counterfeit goods, its legal remedies won't include jail time or anything outside of civil lawsuits. By rushing to judgement, it has made potential purchasers wary of dealing with it -- not just for potential interference in perfectly legal resale, but in terms of any negative reviews that might be greeted with similar threatening emails.

Filed Under: ownership, products, resale rights, resellers, threats
Companies: amazon, sock and bruster, velodyne acoustics

68 Comments

OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product

Overhype

from the we-didn't-copy-it-and-learn-how-innovation-works dept

Mon, Jan 28th 2013 2:55pm — Mike Masnick

We see stories often enough about "big" companies "copying" the ideas of individuals or small upstarts, and it's not uncommon to see a group of fans rise up in protest, often leading the big company to back down and apologize. This can show how social pressure can keep egregious behavior in check -- but sometimes, it can create virtual lynch mobs that are ill-informed. Last week's fight between Quirky and OXO is a really fascinating case study both in how such a lynch mob can come about... as well as how the so-called "big" company crafted a really good response.

If you're unfamiliar with the players Quirky is actually a pretty cool startup, where people submit ideas for cool products, which are then voted on by the community, and the most popular ideas are refined by the community and then made into products and sold in stores, with whoever submitted the initial idea getting a cut of the revenue. I like the model, and think it fits well with a number of other cool services (like Kickstarter) that are leading to a revolution in the creation of new consumer products. OXO is a somewhat ubiquitous maker of useful products for your home, with a focus on comfortable rubbery grips.

Last week, Quirky suddenly announced a war against OXO, arguing that OXO's Upright Sweep Set (a broom and dustpan set) was actually a copy of Quirky's Broom Groomer. The key issue? Both dustpans have "teeth" that hopefully pull off stubborn dirt and dust from the broom into the dustpan. You can see them here:

Quirky argued it was standing up for the little guy, inventor Bill Ward, who first submitted the idea that became the Broom Groomer. The whole thing certainly felt like a publicity stunt to some extent, with Quirky putting up a big freaking banner on its building referencing the fact that OXO's offices are two blocks away from its own:

Also, the "protest" outside of OXO's office felt fairly contrived:

Of course, when an online mob is out for justice, arguing that you've "ripped off" the little guy, plenty of companies quite reasonably just fold. Often this is because they have done something that, if not illegal, is somewhat questionable in nature. However, OXO didn't feel they had done anything wrong, and they put together an almost perfect response to the whole campaign. Seriously, for anyone working for a larger company, trying to understand how to respond to an angry online uprising, when much of that uprising has been driven by misinformation, look at OXO's response and take notes.

The response is clear, written in a conversational tone -- but also quite direct in explaining why Quirky's campaign was complete hogwash. It's not defensive, calmly walking through what had already transpired, and explaining what Quirky had stated. But then it added the important missing facts, starting with the fact that such designs weren't just common, but that one had been patented about 100 years ago, and had long been in the public domain.

OXO explained:

Unfortunately, the designer of Quirky's Broom Groomer wasn't the first person to come up with the idea of teeth on a dustpan. The idea was actually invented almost 100 years ago. On September 9, 1919, the patent for this idea was issued to Addison F. Kelley from Freeland Park, IN. Information about this patent (No. US1,315,310) is available here: http://www.google.com/patents/US1315310.

In a nutshell, Addison F. Kelley's patent specifies a "provision for combing the brush used in connection with the pan... It will be apparent… that a broom or brush may be readily cleaned and particles of hair and the like removed therefrom by inserting the teeth into the body of the brush and then pulling thereon until the teeth are free of the outer ends of the bristles of the brush or broom, at which time the dirt removed will fall into the dust pan."

They then note that the patent has been expired since 1936 and highlight a number of differences between the Quirky product and the OXO product, but then explain how innovation works:

Ideas are limitless and patents expire for a reason: to encourage competition, innovation, and the evolution of new ideas that ultimately benefit the end user. If patents never expired, we would have only one car company, and the cars they develop would likely not be readily available and affordable to so many people all over the world. Imagine that.

At OXO, we either invent or improve. In this instance, we improved upon Mr. Kelley's patent. Many other innovators do this as well. Apple did not invent the Walkman. They did not invent the cell phone. They did not invent the tablet computer. Their designers improved each and now millions of people enjoy the fruits of their improvements.

This is fantastic for a number of reasons. But, beyond that, OXO points out that other companies copy its innovations all the time, and they're cool with that, because that's competition and it's how innovation is supposed to work:

With over 800 OXO tools, we also come across products that look strikingly similar to our own. At this point, many consumers don't realize that prior to OXO, there were no soft, comfortable non-slip grips on kitchen tools or other consumer products. We appreciate the competition's right to incorporate this feature to the point where it is now commonplace. In the end, the consumer won.

And then, they highlight a ton of Quirky products that are remarkably similar to OXO products, but which OXO had first. Here's just one example:

In the end, they make the key point:

Now, let's put this all behind us and get back to designing great products.

Of course, there's also a sidebar, in which they point out that Quirky is attempting to patent the Broom Groomer, and noting that beyond running into trouble due to that 1919 patent, it appears Quirky failed to file its patent within the 12-month window you have after disclosing an idea. The sidebar also notes that inventors who submit their ideas to Quirky may not fully understand the legal implications of doing so -- and they offer everyone, Quirky inventor or not, the opportunity to take a "patent process primer" from an OXO product engineer.

Over the weekend, Quirky responded with its own blog post, that comes across as fairly weak in comparison. The entire argument hinges on timing. Quirky insists that OXO must have copied its design (despite the differences) because of the timing when each product came out. It ignores the many products that OXO highlighted it has where similar products came from Quirky later. Instead, Quirky continues to spin it as "little guy against big company," somehow claiming a ridiculous victory in that it got OXO to respond. That's pretty weak sauce, frankly. OXO won this battle pretty handily.

In the end, the whole thing looks like a really weak attempt at churning up controversy over a bogus issue to generate publicity for Quirky. It might have seemed like a good idea, but in retrospect, it looks really weak. That's too bad, because (as stated earlier), I really like Quirky as a concept, but focusing on whose copying whom when they could spend their time designing, innovating and building, just seems like a really weak move.

Filed Under: brooms, copying, dustpans, innovation, products
Companies: oxo, quirky

39 Comments

Odd Logic: If You Value Your Readers, You Should Make Them Pay

Business Models

from the isn't-that-backwards? dept

Fri, Jan 4th 2013 5:37pm — Mike Masnick

We've done the "paywall' debate over and over again, and it's hardly worth rehashing. However, the latest discussion among those who focus on such things is the fascinating experiment by uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan, who has spent the past few years tethering his blog to big media properties who pay him for the privilege, but who has decided to go completely independent, with no ads and fully supported (he hopes!) by loyal fans of the site paying at least $19.95. As he makes clear, this is not a paywall. At best, you could consider it a very weak "nagwall." All of the content will remain free and available. The full text RSS feeds will remain free from "the meter" (as he calls it). The only people who will be impacted are those who read the site directly and click "read more" on longer posts that have to be expanded to read the whole thing. Those who don't pay and visit the site directly and click read more on those articles will see a few for free and then be asked to pay -- though, they could just revisit the page by finding a link. That's because any visit from a link won't count towards the meter. He's right that this isn't a paywall, and in many ways it's similar to the NY Times' setup, which isn't really a paywall either.

And, the initial results are fantastic. They brought in $333k in the first day, which is pretty amazing. The site has a staff of seven, and it sounds like they're hoping to get over a million to cover salaries and expenses. Also interesting is that the $19.95 payment is a minimum option: there's a pay-what-you-want option above that, and "on average, readers paid almost $8 more" than that minimum. Of course, that data might be skewed by the fact at least one person ponied up $10,000.

First off, I'll say that I think this is a cool experiment and hope that Sullivan succeeds (as it appears he's likely to do). Considering that we're a site with somewhat similar traffic numbers (from what's been reported) and staff, it's encouraging to think that readers would step up and support it to that level. I'm happy that he's not going with a "paywall," but a solution that recognizes the value of having his readers be able to share and link to the blog without fear of bumping into a wall. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Jay Rosen who highlights that what makes this work is the incredibly strong relationship Sullivan has built with his community. What's that saying? Oh yeah, connect with fans, give them a reason to buy. I've heard that one before. Also, something about being open, human and awesome. Sullivan hits on all those points. So it's very cool to see in action.

As excited as I am to see cool business model experimentation, and to see it in a manner that really is built on not locking up content, there are a few things that strike me as odd about this. These aren't criticisms, per se, because as I've said, I think that the idea is wonderful for a site like Sullivan's Daily Dish, and I think it's quite likely to succeed. But some of the statements that Sullivan made in announcing this, and some of the explanation, just doesn't ring true to me. First up, he tosses out that old chestnut about how "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product." And this is just days after we had a good explanation for why that saying is mostly bullshit. He follows that line with this one:

We want to treat our readers better than that, because you deserve better than that.

That strikes me as equally inaccurate. Treating your readers "better" means making them pay? Really? Yes, it's working in that they're willing to pay (which is great), but it seems ridiculous to argue that your readers are so valuable... that they should pay you. Getting people to pay is a perfectly fine business model if you can pull it off, but it's no more noble than other business models. The readers in that situation may not be "the product," but now they're "the money," and that has its own issues.

Now, of course, we have plenty of experience with this ourselves. We've set up ways that readers can pay us directly as well (and we appreciate each and every one who has supported us in that way!). But we don't claim that one way is somehow more pure than the other -- and we try to focus on providing additional benefits for those who do decide to support us: whether it's neat features, opportunities to hang out or cool merchandise. But there's nothing more "pure" about one model than another.

My second issue is really the flipside of the first. Along with highlighting the "purity" of getting his audience to pay, he denigrates the entire concept of advertising:

The decision on advertising was the hardest, because obviously it provides a vital revenue stream for almost all media products. But we know from your emails how distracting and intrusive it can be; and how it often slows down the page painfully. And we're increasingly struck how advertising is dominated online by huge entities, and how compromising and time-consuming it could be for so few of us to try and lure big corporations to support us. We're also mindful how online ads have created incentives for pageviews over quality content.

Now, it's absolutely true that an awful lot of advertising sucks in exactly the manner described above. But that doesn't mean it needs to be that way. There's a growing recognition in the industry that intrusive and annoying advertising is not the way to go for exactly the reasons that Sullivan explains above. But as we've discussed, when you do advertising right, it's simply good content itself that people want. That's why a month from now, the most popular thing on Superbowl Sunday won't be the football game, but the commercials. There are times that people seek out advertising and are happy to see it. And compelling ad/sponsorship campaigns need to be about that.

Now, it's reasonable to admit that many marketers haven't full grasped this concept, and dragging them, kicking and screaming, into this new era is not something that Sullivan and his team wants to take on. And that's a reasonable argument (and, as someone who's spent way too much time trying to convince marketers of this thing, only to see them default back to silly, pointless, misleading ad metrics, I can completely respect such a decision). But, it seems wrong to slam "all advertising" into a single bucket, just because some (or even a lot of) advertising is done really poorly.

Again, I think this is a great move for Sullivan and his blog, and wish him tremendous success. We're certainly watching closely from over here. But, it still makes me cringe a little to see those two claims being made in his announcement. Yes, perhaps it helps in the positioning -- and framing the whole thing as some grand social experiment in purity over crass commercialism. In other words, it's a form of marketing all on its own. But, I still think it's a bit unfair and exploitative, without being particularly accurate.

Filed Under: advertising, andrew sullivan, business models, journalism, meters, paywalls, products, purity

29 Comments

Kickstarter Introduces New Rules To Try To Limit Disappointment

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

Fri, Sep 21st 2012 2:31pm — Mike Masnick

There have been a few stories of late about the possibility of backlash over failed Kickstarter projects. After all, for all the cool things about Kickstarter, anyone investing in a project there is taking a risk, and some of that risk leads to dashed expectations. Kickstarter has apparently been taking those concerns quite seriously, and issued some rule changes directed at hopefully limiting the disappointment factor for supporters of physical products, mainly by doing more to highlight the risks and current state of the offerings.

New projects will be required to detail what the risks and challenges of the project are, and how they intend to overcome them. It should be pretty interesting to see how those sections turn out. To be honest, I could actually see that being really useful for people behind these projects, as it's not uncommon for enthusiastic creators to not even want to confront the risks and challenges they're facing. Forcing them to do so will hopefully lead to more realistic assessments of what can be done.

The other rule changes seem a bit strange to me, and I'm not sure they'll be as effective. The first is to ban renderings or simulations of products:

Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development.

Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.

I can certainly understand why they're doing this, as it will clearly give a much more realistic picture of where things are at the moment. But it seems like requiring renderings and simulations to be clearly marked as such might be a more effective solution -- along with showing what the actual current state of the technology is. Since many of these projects need money to finalize development, it seems fair to show what they intend the final product to look like.

The other ban is on offering multiple quantities of a reward, unless it really only makes sense that way (like where you need a pair of devices to make something work). That's to reinforce the idea that this isn't a "store" for pre-buying things, but to really get people to invest in the project itself. While it does often feel that projects got a bit lazy with upper tiers that were little more than "5 of x," I'm also not sure that this one really makes that much sense. Kickstarter defends the decision this way:

The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

I understand the line of thinking... but I could see that taking away value from potential buyers who are willing to take the risk and buy in on a product early, where they'd like multiple quantities.

Either way, it's fascinating to watch how Kickstarter continues to evolve -- and to note that the company (as it has for a long time) seems very keen on listening to what people are saying, and figuring out reasonable ways to avoid any problems.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, products, rules
Companies: kickstarter

28 Comments

Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is

Business Models

from the lessons-from-the-front dept

Thu, Mar 3rd 2011 10:17am — Mike Masnick

About a decade ago, I wrote a long analysis of why digital "goods" were really a "service," not a "product," and explained how this was the key to understanding modern business models. I had submitted it to a large publication, who came back and told me that my reasoning made no sense at all and they refused to publish it. It may be true that my reasoning doesn't make much sense, but it's nice to see that others are coming to the same conclusion. Hypebot has a nice post from singer/songwriter Jeff Macdougall explaining how music must be viewed as a service, rather than a product, if those in the music industry want to successfully adapt to the changing market:

When a label executive tells you that they are "not in the business of selling discs", (or vinyl, tape, t-shirts, etc.) and that they are actually "selling music," they are, at best, fooling themselves, or at worst, lying to your face. Moving plastic, vinyl, paper and/or any other tangible good they can dream up is exactly what the recording industry has been about since it was established.

Sure, the labels spend money and time trying to infuse their products (CDs, posters, etc.) with content (music, album art, etc.) to raise its intrinsic value, but it's still the CD or poster that they are/were selling... not the music itself.

He goes on to note that music is really an experience, and people should stop focusing on copyright law or the idea that file sharing is "stealing," and focus on the overall experience and building models based on that.

Of course, he doesn't quite get into the difference between a service and a product -- and it's one area that people sometimes get confused about, so one way to simplify it is to think of it like this: a product is a single thing created in the past that you now own. A service is paying for something to happen in the future. It's not a perfect explanation, but in my experience, this simple distinction often gets people thinking creatively about how to turn a business model into one focused on selling a service, rather than a product.

Filed Under: business models, experience, goods, music, products, services

162 Comments

Understanding The Difference Between Price And Value; Product And Benefit

Say That Again

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Thu, Aug 21st 2008 3:05am — Mike Masnick

Earlier this year, in response to yet another editorial somewhere where someone insisted that if something has a price of zero, it means that people don't think it has any value, we pointed out that price and value are two different things. Price isn't determined by value -- it's determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Value plays into that, by determining what the demand part is. That is, if I value widget X at $10, then I'd be willing to pay anything less than $10 for it. If the intersection of supply and demand prices widget X at $5, it doesn't mean that I value it at $5, but it does make it likely that I'll buy it. The same is true if the market prices it at $0. It doesn't mean I place a $0 value on it. It just means it's worth getting at that price, since it's below what I value it at.

In the past few months, this discussion keeps coming up again and again -- and it's good to see folks pushing back and pointing out the difference between price and value. The latest is Amy Gahran, over at eMedia Tidbits, where she takes a journalism professor to task for asking whether journalism should even be done at all if people don't "find value in what we as journalists do." First, Gahran makes the point that, historically journalism has always been more supported by ads than people anyway, and then makes the price/value distinction:

just because people aren't willing to directly pay cash for something does not necessarily mean they don't "find value" in it. For instance, when was the last time you personally chipped in for a clinical trial? And how are you paying for that air you're breathing right now?

Some benefits are assumed to be part of the environment in which we exist. That's what it means to have an environment. If a benefit grows scarce to the point that people feel they must directly pay cash from their pocket to keep getting it, there's probably a far more dire calamity at hand than that single point of scarcity. Most people will almost always seek other free sources of a benefit first.

She then goes on to make another favorite point: too often, those in dying industries mistake the product they're selling with the benefit they're selling. The horse carriage makers mistakenly thought they were in the horse carriage business (product) rather than the transportation market (benefit). The best way to succeed is not to focus on the product, but the benefit you're providing your customers:

I think it's important to bear in mind that people value benefits, not necessarily forms. The key benefit that journalists and news organizations have provided has been relevant, timely, accurate information that helps people make decisions, take action, and form opinions. For over a century we've established an ad-supported business model around packaging that benefit in a form known as "journalism." But that's not the only form this benefit can take, and many parts of the "American public" (and the advertising industry) are figuring that out.

Good stuff.

Filed Under: benefits, economics, price, products, value

52 Comments

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Thursday
13:33	Former Employees Say Mossad Members Dropped By NSO Officers To Run Off-The-Books Phone Hacks (2)
12:01	No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet (18)
10:49	San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck (18)
10:44	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Java Coder Bundle (0)
09:31	As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why (44)
06:30	Comcast Continues To Bleed Olympics Viewers After Years Of Bumbling (19)
Wednesday
20:42	Apple Finally Defeats Dumb Diverse Emoji Lawsuit One Year Later (6)
15:39	Clearview Pitch Deck Says It's Aiming For A 100 Billion Image Database, Restarting Sales To The Private Sector (10)
13:41	Peloton Outage Prevents Customers From Using $2,500 Exercise Bikes (16)
12:09	The GOP Knows That The Dem's Antitrust Efforts Have A Content Moderation Trojan Horse; Why Don't The Dems? (16)
10:51	Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year (24)
09:21	Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional (34)
06:16	Medical, Home Alarm Industries Warn Of Major Outages As AT&T Shuts Down 3G Network (25)
Tuesday
20:37	Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History' (29)
15:35	Massachusetts Court Says No Expectation Of Privacy In Social Media Posts Unwittingly Shared With An Undercover Cop (17)
13:30	Techdirt Podcast Episode 312: Regulating The Internet (2)
12:03	US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly (60)
10:42	LA Sheriff Threatens To 'Subject' City Council To 'Defamation Law' If They Won't Stop Calling His Deputies 'Gang Members' (20)
10:37	Daily Deal: codeSpark Academy Sibling Bundle (0)
09:25	Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230 (128)
06:22	15 Years Late, The FCC Cracks Down On Broadband Apartment Monopolies (31)
Sunday
12:05	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (11)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: February 13th - 19th (1)
Friday
19:39	Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science (25)
15:52	Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry (44)
13:49	Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files (44)
12:13	Thankfully, Jay Inslee's Unconstitutional Bill To Criminalize Political Speech Dies In The Washington Senate (8)
10:52	How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young (136)
10:47	Daily Deal: The Complete Blocs Website Builder Bundle (0)
09:33	Arizona Prosecutor Who Brought Bogus Gang Charges Against Protesters Files Ridiculous Defamation Suit Against Her Boss (12)

Audio Equipment Manufacturer Threatens Amazon Reseller With 'Mandatory Jail Time'

from the 'boil-in-the-torment-of-hell'-also-listed-as-possible-legal-recourse dept

OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product

from the we-didn't-copy-it-and-learn-how-innovation-works dept

Odd Logic: If You Value Your Readers, You Should Make Them Pay

from the isn't-that-backwards? dept

Kickstarter Introduces New Rules To Try To Limit Disappointment

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is

from the lessons-from-the-front dept

Understanding The Difference Between Price And Value; Product And Benefit

from the let's-try-this-again dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Sunday

Saturday

Friday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the 'boil-in-the-torment-of-hell'-also-listed-as-possible-legal-recourse dept

from the we-didn't-copy-it-and-learn-how-innovation-works dept

from the isn't-that-backwards? dept

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

from the lessons-from-the-front dept

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More