Technology News
|
Last week, I went on PBS Mediashift's podcast to debate media mogul Steven Brill about the power of paywalls. Brill runs Press+, one of the first companies that built a business around setting up paywalls for publications. They focus on NYT/FT-like "metered" paywalls, where you get some content for free, but if you hit a certain number of pages, you're locked out unless you pay. Brill, whose company had to sell out to a much larger player recently (suggesting it's not as successful as he makes it out to be), insists during the episode that there is no way to make money giving away journalism content for free, and insists that advertising is no way to make money. You can hear our debate starting at around 18:45 on the podcast:
There was a lot more that could have been said if we'd had the time, but I found a number of his arguments bizarre. The internet represents a huge opportunity to grow and expand a business -- yet he's celebrating the fact that the sites who agree to put up the giant padlock he's selling are "only" losing a little bit of their traffic? This is the time to be investing in and growing traffic, because as soon as free competitors come along, and people realize they don't need to pay any more, what will these sites have left? They'll have less traffic, less advertising and less subscription revenue. That's no way to invest in the future.
Separately, there was a nonsensical story about a journalism student who might get hired for a publication, but if that publication gives away its content for free, she can't pay her rent any more. I have no time for arguments like that. If she got hired, she has a salary. If a publication is giving away content for free that doesn't mean it makes no money or has no business model. Arguments like that suggest someone who has no real argument.
I am sure that the publications -- mostly regional newspapers -- that are using Press + are successful in slowing the rate of churn. Some paper subscribers probably agree to do a bundled package for the time being, getting paper and digital access. But it's not a long term solution. Perhaps for people of Brill's generation, it makes sense, but I don't know many people under 40 who subscribe to a local newspaper any more. There's more and more info available for free online. And there are growing opportunities to provide more such info.
Advertising is a tough way to make a living, but no one says it's the only way to make money online. There are lots of creative ways to make money online that don't involve pissing off your userbase and limiting what they can do. When you do that, you make the content that much less valuable, and that's no way to run a business.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
We were a bit surprised last week to hear that a court in the Netherlands had ruled that the Dutch Pirate Party had to censor itself, when it came to explaining to people how to use proxies to get around The Pirate Bay block. At some point such censorship needs to be seen as a fundamental violation of human rights. If you are going to block a website, that's one thing. But blocking a political party from demonstrating the ridiculousness of such a block by ordering them not to talk about it? You're just asking for trouble.
However, we should have remembered that we've seen this kind of thing in the past in the Netherlands. A couple years ago, a court blocked the usenet community site FTD. FTD did not host any infringing content. It did not offer torrents of any infringing content. It was simply a community offering that some people used to post information on where you could find infringement. And for that, it was blocked. And yet... some people noticed at the time that the judge in that case taught "anti-piracy" classes, where the person running the events was the lawyer representing the entertainment industry in that same case.
Guess what? Turns out the judge in this case was that exact same judge, leading Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge to accuse him of beiing "not only corrupt, but textbook corrupt." Don't they have conflict of interest rules in the Netherlands?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
Late last week Charlie Ergen and the folks at Dish Networks presented the TV networks with a bit of a conundrum. You see, the company decided to actually give consumers what they want: setting up a special DVR system, called Auto Hop, that would let viewers not just automatically DVR the entire primetime lineup of all the major networks with the single push of a button -- but also to automatically skip commercials when watching the playback, as long as it wasn't the same day the shows aired. This is something that consumers clearly want -- which Dish execs were pretty upfront about:
“Viewers love to skip commercials,” Vivek Khemka, vice president of DISH Product Management, said in a statement
But, of course, who is a consumer in this market gets complicated pretty fast. The TV networks, of course, make a fair bit of money from advertising on these shows, and they're not happy about any idea that means people might skip commercials. Those of you who have been around for a bit may recall a few relevant stories. First, there was Jamie Kellner, the former chair of Turner Broadcast Systems, who once claimed that walking away from your TV while commercials aired was a form of theft. Then, of course, there was the famous ReplayTV case. If you don't recall, ReplayTV was an early competitor to TiVo, and in many regards a better product. Among its features, it took an already considered legal feature from VCRs called "commercial skip" and added it to DVRs. The industry sued, in large part because of this feature, which they considered to be breaking the law.
Of course, the expense of the lawsuit resulted in Replay's parent company SonicBlue declaring bankruptcy. It then sold off the remains to D&M, who tried relaunching a version of the product without all the cool features people liked, and it went nowhere. Eventually, DirecTV bought the remnants. However, the basic lawsuit died out with the bankruptcy. A bunch of ReplayTV users, led by Craig Newmark from Craigslist, actually tried to continue the case on their own, to have those features declared legal, but after the networks promised not to sue those users for using the features, the judge tossed the case.
Left unresolved, of course, is whether or not features like commercial skip are actually legal.
As some are pointing out, the TV networks may have missed a golden opportunity by not continuing the fight against Craig and the other users, since they wouldn't be able to afford the bigtime lawyers that Ergen and Dish can easily toss out here. So the TV networks basically have to make the decision if this is really a battle worth fighting.
It does seem clear that the anti-consumer folks who run the TV networks would certainly like to slap Dish around for this move:
"I think this is an attack on our eco-system," said NBC Broadcasting chairman Ted Harbert on a conference call Monday. "I'm not for it."
Isn't it just like NBC to think that a tool that the public actually finds useful is an "attack" on their ecosystem? At some point, in the way, way distant future, perhaps we'll live in an age where companies like NBC Universal recognize that, when things are more efficient and easier for consumers, it is a good thing, rather than something to freak out about and declare evil?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 13 of 341 |
|
