Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ajay

Consumers Won't Pay For Content Anymore

Recommended Posts

http://www.paulgraham.com/publishing.html

Publishers of all types, from news to music, are unhappy that consumers won't pay for content anymore. At least, that's how they see it.

In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more? [1]

A copy of Time costs $5 for 58 pages, or 8.6 cents a page. The Economist costs $7 for 86 pages, or 8.1 cents a page. Better journalism is actually slightly cheaper.

Almost every form of publishing has been organized as if the medium was what they were selling, and the content was irrelevant. Book publishers, for example, set prices based on the cost of producing and distributing books. They treat the words printed in the book the same way a textile manufacturer treats the patterns printed on its fabrics.

Economically, the print media are in the business of marking up paper. We can all imagine an old-style editor getting a scoop and saying "this will sell a lot of papers!" Cross out that final S and you're describing their business model. The reason they make less money now is that people don't need as much paper.

A few months ago I ran into a friend in a cafe. I had a copy of the New York Times, which I still occasionally buy on weekends. As I was leaving I offered it to him, as I've done countless times before in the same situation. But this time something new happened. I felt that sheepish feeling you get when you offer someone something worthless. "Do you, er, want a printout of yesterday's news?" I asked. (He didn't.)

Now that the medium is evaporating, publishers have nothing left to sell. Some seem to think they're going to sell content—that they were always in the content business, really. But they weren't, and it's unclear whether anyone could be.

More at the link.

How long have our press barons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.paulgraham.com/publishing.html

Publishers of all types, from news to music, are unhappy that consumers won't pay for content anymore. At least, that's how they see it.

In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more? [1]

A copy of Time costs $5 for 58 pages, or 8.6 cents a page. The Economist costs $7 for 86 pages, or 8.1 cents a page. Better journalism is actually slightly cheaper.

Almost every form of publishing has been organized as if the medium was what they were selling, and the content was irrelevant. Book publishers, for example, set prices based on the cost of producing and distributing books. They treat the words printed in the book the same way a textile manufacturer treats the patterns printed on its fabrics.

Economically, the print media are in the business of marking up paper. We can all imagine an old-style editor getting a scoop and saying "this will sell a lot of papers!" Cross out that final S and you're describing their business model. The reason they make less money now is that people don't need as much paper.

A few months ago I ran into a friend in a cafe. I had a copy of the New York Times, which I still occasionally buy on weekends. As I was leaving I offered it to him, as I've done countless times before in the same situation. But this time something new happened. I felt that sheepish feeling you get when you offer someone something worthless. "Do you, er, want a printout of yesterday's news?" I asked. (He didn't.)

Now that the medium is evaporating, publishers have nothing left to sell. Some seem to think they're going to sell content—that they were always in the content business, really. But they weren't, and it's unclear whether anyone could be.

More at the link.

How long have our press barons.

Well it all depends on how long their main market...oh f*ck it I`m too pissed, have to finish this one another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. I've never paid for content in isolation.

Bought many CDs but never paid for a download (I don't due it illegally, I don't do it all).

The news / articles I usually get from listening to the radio. When I buy a paper it's so I can sit back and read it, rather than being sat at a screen.

I can't see a circumstance under which I would pay for pure content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt murdoch going to start asking for a sub to access some of his titles? i seem to recall that was in the news.

frank

emusic.com - 25 free downloads in their no ob free trial, they dont have everything but had even some obscure ones i went for but eg no queen, no madonna and worst of all probably no Bros...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isnt murdoch going to start asking for a sub to access some of his titles? i seem to recall that was in the news.

frank

emusic.com - 25 free downloads in their no ob free trial, they dont have everything but had even some obscure ones i went for but eg no queen, no madonna and worst of all probably no Bros...

RM wants people to pay for The Sun's online content...

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/92...ve-advertisers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isnt murdoch going to start asking for a sub to access some of his titles? i seem to recall that was in the news.

frank

emusic.com - 25 free downloads in their no ob free trial, they dont have everything but had even some obscure ones i went for but eg no queen, no madonna and worst of all probably no Bros...

It might work for Murdoch. A sub to access the content across all his papers. So for £x per month I could read articles in the Times, ST or the Sun, but not a "per paper" subscription. Perhaps bundled with a Sky/Broadband subscription?

Not sure "electronic readers" are quite there yet like Kindle. I read the news on laptops in Starbucks but it isn't quite the same thing as having a newspaper or trying to read something on your mobile.

It should save though once you get rid of the cost of paper mills, printing and distribution solely by electronic methods. Probably the death knell though to lots of corner shop newsagents.

I'd really like to see the free (local) junk papers bit the dust first though. I'm fed up of wading through piles of free newspapers when I get back into the house after a few days away. There are far too many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.