Mike, regarding "the assertion that members of The Pirate Party aren't actually interested in the civil rights and freedom issues the party stands for, but that they just want "free stuff." I think you're referring at least in part to the comments that I (and a very few others) made on your prior post. My contention wasn't and isn't that party MEMBERS aren't seriously interested in the real rights issues at hand. I think I said that several different ways. My comments were surrounding the generic SUPPORTERS and VOTERS, not specifically in Sweden but surrounding this movement globally. Of course those that spend their time and treasure working on these issues, including the pursuit of public office, are focused on the real issues they see and have defined. The question I (apparently ineffectively) attempted to raise is whether the support this party and other similar movements are presently enjoying will actually be sustained due to a substantial amount of it coming from those less focused on issues and more focused on stuff. The Free Stuffers, I call them. I don't (and don't mean to sound like I) question anyone's first-person statements as to what their focus is. I'm talking about a chunk of the casual supporters who have a vote, but aren't vocally involved otherwise.
And as for your comment that you "agree that calling it The Pirate Party helps in getting initial attention (and press attention), it also brings out those sorts of false accusations that it's just about "getting free stuff" rather than serious issues that impact civil rights and innovation..." again, either you misunderstand or I wasn't clear: the movement IS about rights, entitlements and protections. It is the support of that movement that isn't necessarily as focused on the real issues. I think it's pretty much a truism that of the millions and tens of millions of people, say, downloading material presently protected by copyright or other IP protection legislation, the vast majority of them aren't engaging in heartfelt civil disobedience against what they view as draconian IP laws and government infringement on their rights...they just want free bootleg of Star Trek. Those are the Free Stuffers. And for the haters, I AGREE that even though a bunch of people are Free Stuffers, it doesn't make these issues less important, the transgressions less damaging and the abuse of monitoring and wiretap laws by government less concerning. But I do think that using the Pirate moniker risks continuing the entanglement of issue-focused rights activism with the quest for free stuff. That's not a "false accusation" it's a real entanglement that is problematic for those interested in real reform.
I love Apple, too, but... If all companies charged the premium they do to become a "member" of the Apple community through the honor of paying a great deal to buy even the simplest of products, every company COULD provide their level of service. Many wouldn't, of course, and would just pocket the extra margin. Apple does get it right in customer service most of the time, but buyers of Apple products very much pay up-front for it. The constant desire by global consumer masses for less and less expensive product makes the CS part of the equation dicey in terms of being fiscally sustainable. But too many companies ignore the brand value of good CS. It doesn't even necessarily have to be GREAT CS, as many of us are impressed when it's just good.
I suppose you can substantiate all of your statements above? Triple source everything, please. :-)
But seriously, my take is that there is a balance where copyrights and patents play a role in protecting very real investment and ensuring that artists, inventors and creators can make a living from their work. I have heard all the contention that they could without copyrights as well, but I don't buy it, not when exercised on a national/global scale. But I totally agree that those rights have gotten out of hand and been extended (both in length of term and breadth of encapsulation) beyond economically and legally defensible limits. I especially agree that government intrusion on behalf of private interests has gone too far. I agree that these areas are in desperate need of reform, but not wholesale elimination. Am I doing okay so far?!?
Going back to today's post about some politics in Sweden, my original point - long since lost here - was that what drove the political support for this election may be less about concern over rights and privacy and more about wanting some free stuff. And I contend that it IS this support that drives these causes elsewhere. No, I'm not commenting on the "nobility" of points of view. Heck, I like free stuff, too. And the support the Free Stuffers provide may help the important causes at hand, at least for a short period of time. But I don't agree that this marks a watershed moment in the global cause relating to the issues at hand. Time will tell.
@hegemon13 - I've never said anyone's views aren't valid, useful or important. I have said the opposite, that important views in the topic area are too often dragged down by less important scrounging for free stuff. I'm sorry if my point of view makes you uncomfortable. And given that most of TechDirt is based on opinion, I think I'll ignore your advice to shut-up. Good day.
@Jason, you read too much into the first post and you're reading way too much into the second. I'm not talking about people's "nobility" or the relative value of one person's thoughts and beliefs over another's. I'm simply saying that this topic, with real substantive issues at its core, has been co-opted by folks who are less interested in rights and freedoms and more interested in free stuff. I never claimed to know Swedish politics intimately and what I wrote doesn't intimate that, I believe. Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with "globally" or "beyond just Sweden." I think it was implied, but obviously you didn't. Apologies for that. My comments regarding your post were my reaction to your words, not a statement on your being. Perhaps I over-interpreted, you certainly did. Nuf said.
Mike, I agree that the genesis of this movement is focused on the important issues you highlight, and that there are sincere, thoughtful and powerful minds involved and leading. But I fail to believe that the broader support it is enjoying in this case is fueled by that as much as it is the other, more mundane desires. As was pointed out to me, supporting the right thing (or a thing moving in the right direction), even for reasons of self-interest, is not to be dismissed. That's totally fair. If we extend this beyond Sweden, my sense is that the free content albatross probably becomes and even greater majority of the support.
As for civil rights, freedom of speech, privacy and innovation being important, I agree. However, just because an argument is clothed in civil rights or freedom of speech language, does not mean that they necessarily are. There are many actors in these causes who have extended much more mundane issues into these areas without (in my opinion) a decent foundation solely to give their cause the appearance of weight and import. This is not a-typical of emergent political causes, but it's also something that can't be ignored.
My comments were most specifically directed at the important of the seat one and the movement-of-the-moment, which I don't believe has "legs" due to the challenges and contradictions of a large chunk of supported/advocates.
@Tor, if that is truly what this is about, then I agree. But I think for the masses (washed and unwashed) this whole topic largely boils down to free movies and music. This is the albatross that the serious thinkers who are concerned with the issues you rightly highlight have to deal with.
Good gracious...the personally directed venom here is immense, though not a surprise. Interesting that my nationality apparently disqualifies me from expressing an opinion on this. Of course, you are ASSUMING that I am an American...perhaps I'm a Geordie living in Baltimore. If I'm European does that make my position more valid? Perhaps I'm Swedish. My point - again - is that you CAN'T know, so you SHOULDN'T personalize.
You're mixing a whole lot of concepts in your response, some of which I agree with (challenge of global monopolies with regard to developing countries) and some which smack of anti-corporate paranoia (telling "me...which concepts and ideas I may and may not share...") that have some basis in reality, but are too often extended to outright paranoia.
I don't disagree that there are those with noble intent on these matters, broadly thought and seriously applied to important issues of access to critical society-building and economy-building ideas, educational content and such, with an aim toward moving humanity forward. But the reality is that there are an equal or greater number who just want free songs and movies. It is the latter that confuses and debases the former.
Holy moley! I figured I'd get one or two of these, but wishing for my death, even if in old age? Amazing.
And I am wholly open to debate, which is why I bothered to post as a (partially) dissenting voice. It's very easy to post in agreement with everyone and accept the mutual affirmations. The tough part is disagreeing, but trying to maintain a bit of an open mind while the arrows fly.
If you read my initial post carefully, my point isn't that this stuff is bogus or worthless, just that on a relative basis, my opinion is that it is not a top political priority for the world in context today. Nor is this election a watershed moment...it's a blip. Time will tell, though.
As for your conclusions about my unwillingness to "think or engage in new ideas"...couldn't be further from what I demonstrate every day in my life and work. But you COULDN'T know that, which is why your SHOULDN'T personalize posts.
@nelsoncruz - thank you for your thoughts. They do make a lot of sense. I especially agree with your last paragraph. The only thing I'd add is that there are very few people who have been directly impacted by the trampling of privacy and freedoms. I know the counter-argument is that we ALL suffer and there is, perhaps, some truth to that. But those who don't download illegally or plan terroristic events generally aren't sweating bullets on this front, I believe (just my observation...not stats to back it up). I certainly agree that endless extensions of copyrights, the inequities between industries in royalty schemes and - most importantly - government intrusions into personal privacy for the benefit of a private industry is deeply troubling. This is all part of the pendulum swinging, and it will invariably get to the middle.
I have to disagree on the comment that "western civilization once had lofty ideals about universal access to culture, knowledge and information." I agree that there are aspects to some elements (specific nations, religions, etc) that held and still hold these lofty ideals. But western civ also has a history of substantially limiting information flow based on class, religion, gender, race, language and such. The Enlightenment broke through a lot of these, but was still much more about the upper classes than the whole of society. The trickle-down effect did occur, but it took centuries. There have been lots of burnings, hangings, excommunications and shunnings resulting from the "incorrect" flow of information or - worse - information which was at variance from the norm or from doctrine. Within the last 100 years (especially the last 50) universal access to information has become more the norm, but it is still deeply entangled in politics and class. Just think of the substantially leftist campuses in Western Europe and North America which make it difficult even today to espouse, much less further, any competing point of view.
And I definitely take your point on the defense of self-interest not being disqualifying. Thanks for that.
@Tor - I agree. As I said, there are real issues involved here, but my observation is that those are co-opted by supporters who have much baser desires: free content. My contention isn't that the platform is bad or a subset of issues unreal, just that much of the effort behind the seat is unimportant in the overall scheme of world politics. Adding a voice to the political spectrum is rarely bad (we'll discount the extreme extents of both political poles), so I applaud this in that regard.
Obviously there isn't much going on in Sweden. Given the world economy, not to mention so many things out there threatening Western Civilization and human life, this just shows that there is an extremely self-centered and oblivious (largely) youth element that for a brief moment in time is jazzed up about this metaphysically unimportant topic. Before all the haters flame, I realize that there is some academic and legalistic importance, and that the very few people who have had their lives directly impacted due to overzealous industry efforts have every right to be worked up (of course, many - not all - of them were likely breaking present law, so....). And I realize the TechDirt seems to care a lot about this topic (by which I mean the presumed right to grab anyone's artistic product via any means for "personal use." Eh hem). But really, in the overall scheme of the universe, it's not very important. And let's please not mix in yet another purely academic philosophical discussion about the "value" of an artist's product and all the theoretical business models that may or may not allow content producers to make a living in a free content world.
As for the "civil rights" argument....please. Let's be honest and not academic for a minute: some people don't want to pay for content and, to make that work, some people create a belief construct that they shouldn't have to pay for it. That they cloak it in a privacy or "civil rights" context just reveals that they kinda know that what they're doing is likely breaking some laws. I agree that there are real privacy issues involved here...but most of those engaging in this activity could give a rat's patoot about that.
That they can get a seat shows the folly of the Swedish political process and the EU. The two party system in the US is pretty bad, very stagnant and presents only shades of gray (I so wish we had a viable third party to represent the 70% of folks in the middle). But the parliamentary seat-slicing approach leads to results that are as stupid, but less predictable. And so it goes.
"The point (apparently not clear enough) is that charging for content that isn't limited and is in a competitive market won't work. That's just simple economics."
So, again, we come to a definition of what is "limited" versus what isn't. Please see my comments yesterday on the difference between information and content. Not perfect, to be sure, but it hits the general fallacy of stating that news "information" (really content) is ubiquitous. Firstly, it isn't really, once very real personal preference comes into play. Second, it only has the appearance of ubiquity because 99% of professional news organizations give away their content free right now. Since this free model is failing, that ubiquity will also cease to exist, whether as a result of putting up paywalls or by those organizations dying.
"Subscribers DO NOT pay for content today."
Yes, I realize this as I am in the industry. But let's break that down. Firstly, you are arguing for free in an online arena, yet your comment refers most directly to traditional print. That's a problem. The cost structure and revenue structure of print is very, very different than online. Second, the direct subscription fee paid by subscribers does not cover costs, you are correct. But it is the VALUE of those subscriber eyes that advertisers want. This is (one of) the big problem with online advertising: typically, it delivers only generic, fleeting eyes, often with little demographic consistency to justify higher advertising fees. This is a major part of the reason that online ads go for pennies (or just a few dollars) per CPM. On the rpint side, when someone buys a single page in Cosmo or Vogue (often in the high five figures per page for a single issue, depending on placement), they get subscriber populations which have a mountain of demographic data behind them, and which historically offer their ads more than a fleeting glance. Plus, print has no analogy to an Ad Blocker...even if only for a second or two, that ad WILL be presented while the reader peruses the title. The very fact that a person has made a financial committment to a publication through buying a subscription signals to advertisers that they are open to relevant product or service information. So yes, while the direct subscriber fee doesn't cover costs, the reality is that the lifetime value of that subscriber can be extremely high because of the advertising they draw in. And for copies at the news stand, it's just as good: they typically pay FULL the issue price, they usually fall into the same demo as the subscriber readership (maintaining the value of the eyes) and there is still no ad blocker. So, I'd be careful trying to cast an online argument in print terms. Or vice versa.
On the business model front, I think my main issue with TechDirt's approach (aside from the HARPING that all free is good, all pay is suspect or bad/evil/stupid) is that their preferred models usually aren't based in today's reality...they require some gap to be filled in the future, or the presuppose that tech-savvy consumers represent the general market (they usually do not).
"You say that as if we're not running our own publication -- and giving away all the content for free."
Well, okay, but as is typically the case, you are ignoring the issue of breadth and scale. TechDirt is an affinity site (using print parlance) and a modest one at that (with apologies). The content you produce is largely derivative and you rely substantially on UGC for interest and traffic. I'm betting that the monthly legal bills for a major newspaper just to protect themselves from libel suits would pay for a substantial piece of your annual operations. And, as I'm sure you well know, business models must be able to SCALE and often don't.
I'm not trying to denigrate or belittle your business, its criticality to those whose livelihoods are attached to it, or the value it may bring. But when you enter the world of pontification about business models, you can't selectively ignore the differences between industries or cost structures or scale.
Interesting and definitely has merit, though all the UGC beatniks will crow about having to "pay to be engaged" being counter to the free-wheeling culture of the web, maaaaaaaan. I can see it in Wired now, right next to another glowing review of whatever Apple is overcharging for.
On a more important front, I think there is too easy a tendency to equate "information" and "content." I agree that information is pretty much ubiquitously available. But content - which might be described as information placed in context, married with an editorial point of view, often coupled with images or video, usually fact-checked and placed in the visual proximity to other relevant data - is not. For example, I agree that the raw information related to the scandalous handling of General Motors' decline is available from a multitude of sources. But I don't have the time to piece all that together, draw some conclusions, package and check it. Those businesses (not bloggers and pressure groups) that do have time are not infinite in number...perhaps a few hundred that actually produce original content based upon available "information." Of those few hundred, only a subset publish reliably in English (my primary language). Of those, only a few dozen have an editorial approach that I can - worst - stomach or - best - enjoy. And of those, there are maybe three or four that I trust and wish to support with my eyes and dollars.
In sum, information may not be scarce, but content (whether fiction, non-fiction, journalistic, editorial, graphical, etc) is DEFINITELY scarce, especially when personal criteria are included: my interests, language, politics, locality, etc.
Again, I say, these are not academic discussions to be viewed in a vacuum, but real-life business questions which involve people with real habits, preferences and inclinations. All of this has to be taken into account. The devil IS definitely in the details.
Mike...is WSJ a "special case" or is it actually a much more typical case. While we tend to think of Big Newspapers and Generalist Magazines, the fact is that there are a lot more specialty or affinity publications in the world, than general ones. Yes, general circ of big papers/mags is larger, but perhaps not as valuable from a business perspective in this new era. Pubs which cater to a specific, motivated, interested group of readers will absolutely fair better in a paid content environment than most generalist pubs. Whether they do well enough to survive and thrive is situation-dependent. And I do believe that some of the "elite" generalist pubs *can* do fine with a paywall so long as they maintain high quality, cater to their readers and offer differentiating voices (largely commentary and investigative journalism) not easily or readily available elsewhere.
Again, you're mixing industries. Google, Facebook, and for the most part, Yahoo, are not content creators, but aggregators. Totally different world and business view. Yes, some aspects (advertising, licensing issues) may carry across these and the publishing space, but they, for the most part, are not saddled with the costs and complexities of creating content. Big difference, and I'm guessing @AnotherAC's comment was really focused on the media/publishing arena.
...of the TechDirt ubiquitous "non-free is bad/stupid/dumb/inane...now it's 'suicide.'" Look, if a content producer has something of sufficient value and interest to its consumer population (maybe not you, but some consumers somewhere) then it might just work fine. I agree that Time, as a general-interest publication, has less differentiating it than say Dirtbike Monthly or another affinity publication. But the bottom line is that the days of giving away at no charge professionally produced content and journalism are numbered. And I, for one, do believe that there is enough demand among the readerships of a good number (certainly not all) of these publications to make them viable.
There is a lot of academic blustering about the metaphysical nature of "value" on TechDirt...fact is that all content is not created equal. Quality content (that which is researched and reliable, with decent prose, good accompanying images and video, etc) is today and will continue to be more desirable than crap content on the same subject. Yes timeliness is a factor, yes availability is a factor and yes price is a factor, but the mere presence of price does not mean the whole thing is "stupid" or "suicide." Having a good business model is not limited to a business model that TechDirt/Masnick agrees with, though the verbiage on this site increasingly seems to make that equation.
There are a number of comments, also, about how paywalls limit growth. Possibly true (depending on how growth is measured and what the business goals are for growth). But growth does not equal profit. And growth comes AFTER survival. Again, these are not theories, they are businesses with real costs, real employees and real shareholders. They don't have the arm-chair luxury that TechDirt does of pontificating without risk and playing a wait-and-see game. Yes, of course they rested on their laurels and fat margins for too long. The reality is that most businesses do get complacent somewhere along their lifecycle when it comes to
market change. The uniqueness here is that a whole industry fell into it...wait, that's not unique: hello, steel, oil, automotive, etc., etc.
And of course the reference to Google is irrelevant as they are in an entirely different business and have a totally different cost structure. The day Google produces de novo content is the day they charge for it.
Courtesy of the folks at TMZ: "Here's the statement released by AT&T: "In Arkansas a few local AT&T employees were invited to attend two local watch parties organized by the community ... they brought a small number of demo phones with them and provided texting tutorials to those who were interested. That said, it's quite a leap to suggest that a few individuals could have impacted the final results." So, they weren't AT&T "reps" and there was no systematic effort here. Besides, ball all accounts the results weren't even close, on a basis of 100,000,000 votes cast. There is no scandal here.
I'd be curious to find out whether these were "AT&T reps" or just some folks who work at an AT&T phone store, or in some part of AT&T who happen to know some texting trick. The term "rep" intimates that they were official relationship representatives from AT&T to American Idol. I find that hard to believe. Anyone from AT&T with any relationship clout would have been in LA at the live event, not some viewing party organized by fans. This sounds like the losers blogging pals looking for something to hang their hat on. Fact is that the loser had been in the bottom three at least once previously. I found him ponderous, as were the attempts by the judges to pump him up. And yes, I admit to watching...guilty pleasure.
On the post: Understanding The Pirate Party
And as for your comment that you "agree that calling it The Pirate Party helps in getting initial attention (and press attention), it also brings out those sorts of false accusations that it's just about "getting free stuff" rather than serious issues that impact civil rights and innovation..." again, either you misunderstand or I wasn't clear: the movement IS about rights, entitlements and protections. It is the support of that movement that isn't necessarily as focused on the real issues. I think it's pretty much a truism that of the millions and tens of millions of people, say, downloading material presently protected by copyright or other IP protection legislation, the vast majority of them aren't engaging in heartfelt civil disobedience against what they view as draconian IP laws and government infringement on their rights...they just want free bootleg of Star Trek. Those are the Free Stuffers. And for the haters, I AGREE that even though a bunch of people are Free Stuffers, it doesn't make these issues less important, the transgressions less damaging and the abuse of monitoring and wiretap laws by government less concerning. But I do think that using the Pirate moniker risks continuing the entanglement of issue-focused rights activism with the quest for free stuff. That's not a "false accusation" it's a real entanglement that is problematic for those interested in real reform.
On the post: Sounding Human: The Difference Between Good And Bad Customer Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: International Reps
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
But seriously, my take is that there is a balance where copyrights and patents play a role in protecting very real investment and ensuring that artists, inventors and creators can make a living from their work. I have heard all the contention that they could without copyrights as well, but I don't buy it, not when exercised on a national/global scale. But I totally agree that those rights have gotten out of hand and been extended (both in length of term and breadth of encapsulation) beyond economically and legally defensible limits. I especially agree that government intrusion on behalf of private interests has gone too far. I agree that these areas are in desperate need of reform, but not wholesale elimination. Am I doing okay so far?!?
Going back to today's post about some politics in Sweden, my original point - long since lost here - was that what drove the political support for this election may be less about concern over rights and privacy and more about wanting some free stuff. And I contend that it IS this support that drives these causes elsewhere. No, I'm not commenting on the "nobility" of points of view. Heck, I like free stuff, too. And the support the Free Stuffers provide may help the important causes at hand, at least for a short period of time. But I don't agree that this marks a watershed moment in the global cause relating to the issues at hand. Time will tell.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Re: Re: Wow
@hegemon13 - I've never said anyone's views aren't valid, useful or important. I have said the opposite, that important views in the topic area are too often dragged down by less important scrounging for free stuff. I'm sorry if my point of view makes you uncomfortable. And given that most of TechDirt is based on opinion, I think I'll ignore your advice to shut-up. Good day.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Wow
As for civil rights, freedom of speech, privacy and innovation being important, I agree. However, just because an argument is clothed in civil rights or freedom of speech language, does not mean that they necessarily are. There are many actors in these causes who have extended much more mundane issues into these areas without (in my opinion) a decent foundation solely to give their cause the appearance of weight and import. This is not a-typical of emergent political causes, but it's also something that can't be ignored.
My comments were most specifically directed at the important of the seat one and the movement-of-the-moment, which I don't believe has "legs" due to the challenges and contradictions of a large chunk of supported/advocates.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Re: Re: Wow
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Re: Re: Wow
You're mixing a whole lot of concepts in your response, some of which I agree with (challenge of global monopolies with regard to developing countries) and some which smack of anti-corporate paranoia (telling "me...which concepts and ideas I may and may not share...") that have some basis in reality, but are too often extended to outright paranoia.
I don't disagree that there are those with noble intent on these matters, broadly thought and seriously applied to important issues of access to critical society-building and economy-building ideas, educational content and such, with an aim toward moving humanity forward. But the reality is that there are an equal or greater number who just want free songs and movies. It is the latter that confuses and debases the former.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Wow
And I am wholly open to debate, which is why I bothered to post as a (partially) dissenting voice. It's very easy to post in agreement with everyone and accept the mutual affirmations. The tough part is disagreeing, but trying to maintain a bit of an open mind while the arrows fly.
If you read my initial post carefully, my point isn't that this stuff is bogus or worthless, just that on a relative basis, my opinion is that it is not a top political priority for the world in context today. Nor is this election a watershed moment...it's a blip. Time will tell, though.
As for your conclusions about my unwillingness to "think or engage in new ideas"...couldn't be further from what I demonstrate every day in my life and work. But you COULDN'T know that, which is why your SHOULDN'T personalize posts.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Wow
I have to disagree on the comment that "western civilization once had lofty ideals about universal access to culture, knowledge and information." I agree that there are aspects to some elements (specific nations, religions, etc) that held and still hold these lofty ideals. But western civ also has a history of substantially limiting information flow based on class, religion, gender, race, language and such. The Enlightenment broke through a lot of these, but was still much more about the upper classes than the whole of society. The trickle-down effect did occur, but it took centuries. There have been lots of burnings, hangings, excommunications and shunnings resulting from the "incorrect" flow of information or - worse - information which was at variance from the norm or from doctrine. Within the last 100 years (especially the last 50) universal access to information has become more the norm, but it is still deeply entangled in politics and class. Just think of the substantially leftist campuses in Western Europe and North America which make it difficult even today to espouse, much less further, any competing point of view.
And I definitely take your point on the defense of self-interest not being disqualifying. Thanks for that.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Re: Wow
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentWow
As for the "civil rights" argument....please. Let's be honest and not academic for a minute: some people don't want to pay for content and, to make that work, some people create a belief construct that they shouldn't have to pay for it. That they cloak it in a privacy or "civil rights" context just reveals that they kinda know that what they're doing is likely breaking some laws. I agree that there are real privacy issues involved here...but most of those engaging in this activity could give a rat's patoot about that.
That they can get a seat shows the folly of the Swedish political process and the EU. The two party system in the US is pretty bad, very stagnant and presents only shades of gray (I so wish we had a viable third party to represent the 70% of folks in the middle). But the parliamentary seat-slicing approach leads to results that are as stupid, but less predictable. And so it goes.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Re: Just more...
So, again, we come to a definition of what is "limited" versus what isn't. Please see my comments yesterday on the difference between information and content. Not perfect, to be sure, but it hits the general fallacy of stating that news "information" (really content) is ubiquitous. Firstly, it isn't really, once very real personal preference comes into play. Second, it only has the appearance of ubiquity because 99% of professional news organizations give away their content free right now. Since this free model is failing, that ubiquity will also cease to exist, whether as a result of putting up paywalls or by those organizations dying.
"Subscribers DO NOT pay for content today."
Yes, I realize this as I am in the industry. But let's break that down. Firstly, you are arguing for free in an online arena, yet your comment refers most directly to traditional print. That's a problem. The cost structure and revenue structure of print is very, very different than online. Second, the direct subscription fee paid by subscribers does not cover costs, you are correct. But it is the VALUE of those subscriber eyes that advertisers want. This is (one of) the big problem with online advertising: typically, it delivers only generic, fleeting eyes, often with little demographic consistency to justify higher advertising fees. This is a major part of the reason that online ads go for pennies (or just a few dollars) per CPM. On the rpint side, when someone buys a single page in Cosmo or Vogue (often in the high five figures per page for a single issue, depending on placement), they get subscriber populations which have a mountain of demographic data behind them, and which historically offer their ads more than a fleeting glance. Plus, print has no analogy to an Ad Blocker...even if only for a second or two, that ad WILL be presented while the reader peruses the title. The very fact that a person has made a financial committment to a publication through buying a subscription signals to advertisers that they are open to relevant product or service information. So yes, while the direct subscriber fee doesn't cover costs, the reality is that the lifetime value of that subscriber can be extremely high because of the advertising they draw in. And for copies at the news stand, it's just as good: they typically pay FULL the issue price, they usually fall into the same demo as the subscriber readership (maintaining the value of the eyes) and there is still no ad blocker. So, I'd be careful trying to cast an online argument in print terms. Or vice versa.
On the business model front, I think my main issue with TechDirt's approach (aside from the HARPING that all free is good, all pay is suspect or bad/evil/stupid) is that their preferred models usually aren't based in today's reality...they require some gap to be filled in the future, or the presuppose that tech-savvy consumers represent the general market (they usually do not).
"You say that as if we're not running our own publication -- and giving away all the content for free."
Well, okay, but as is typically the case, you are ignoring the issue of breadth and scale. TechDirt is an affinity site (using print parlance) and a modest one at that (with apologies). The content you produce is largely derivative and you rely substantially on UGC for interest and traffic. I'm betting that the monthly legal bills for a major newspaper just to protect themselves from libel suits would pay for a substantial piece of your annual operations. And, as I'm sure you well know, business models must be able to SCALE and often don't.
I'm not trying to denigrate or belittle your business, its criticality to those whose livelihoods are attached to it, or the value it may bring. But when you enter the world of pontification about business models, you can't selectively ignore the differences between industries or cost structures or scale.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Re: Good Business Model
On a more important front, I think there is too easy a tendency to equate "information" and "content." I agree that information is pretty much ubiquitously available. But content - which might be described as information placed in context, married with an editorial point of view, often coupled with images or video, usually fact-checked and placed in the visual proximity to other relevant data - is not. For example, I agree that the raw information related to the scandalous handling of General Motors' decline is available from a multitude of sources. But I don't have the time to piece all that together, draw some conclusions, package and check it. Those businesses (not bloggers and pressure groups) that do have time are not infinite in number...perhaps a few hundred that actually produce original content based upon available "information." Of those few hundred, only a subset publish reliably in English (my primary language). Of those, only a few dozen have an editorial approach that I can - worst - stomach or - best - enjoy. And of those, there are maybe three or four that I trust and wish to support with my eyes and dollars.
In sum, information may not be scarce, but content (whether fiction, non-fiction, journalistic, editorial, graphical, etc) is DEFINITELY scarce, especially when personal criteria are included: my interests, language, politics, locality, etc.
Again, I say, these are not academic discussions to be viewed in a vacuum, but real-life business questions which involve people with real habits, preferences and inclinations. All of this has to be taken into account. The devil IS definitely in the details.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Re: Re: Bingo
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Re: Bingo
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Just more...
There is a lot of academic blustering about the metaphysical nature of "value" on TechDirt...fact is that all content is not created equal. Quality content (that which is researched and reliable, with decent prose, good accompanying images and video, etc) is today and will continue to be more desirable than crap content on the same subject. Yes timeliness is a factor, yes availability is a factor and yes price is a factor, but the mere presence of price does not mean the whole thing is "stupid" or "suicide." Having a good business model is not limited to a business model that TechDirt/Masnick agrees with, though the verbiage on this site increasingly seems to make that equation.
There are a number of comments, also, about how paywalls limit growth. Possibly true (depending on how growth is measured and what the business goals are for growth). But growth does not equal profit. And growth comes AFTER survival. Again, these are not theories, they are businesses with real costs, real employees and real shareholders. They don't have the arm-chair luxury that TechDirt does of pontificating without risk and playing a wait-and-see game. Yes, of course they rested on their laurels and fat margins for too long. The reality is that most businesses do get complacent somewhere along their lifecycle when it comes to
market change. The uniqueness here is that a whole industry fell into it...wait, that's not unique: hello, steel, oil, automotive, etc., etc.
And of course the reference to Google is irrelevant as they are in an entirely different business and have a totally different cost structure. The day Google produces de novo content is the day they charge for it.
On the post: Technology Again Causes American Idol Controversy, Fingers Pointed At AT&T
Updated statement from AT&T
On the post: Technology Again Causes American Idol Controversy, Fingers Pointed At AT&T
Reps
On the post: Will People Pay For Investigative Journalism To Get The Results A Week Early
Re:
Next >>