Comments on: Do you think free content is a viable path for independent content producers? http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/ Thoughts on the future of publishing Thu, 26 May 2011 22:44:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Why the Financial Times can charge for metered content — Eat Sleep Publish http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-1004 Why the Financial Times can charge for metered content — Eat Sleep Publish Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:41:20 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=459#comment-1004 [...] was recently prodded in the comments by Working Reporter to look at how the Financial Times is charging users for its [...] [...] was recently prodded in the comments by Working Reporter to look at how the Financial Times is charging users for its [...]

]]> By: Jason Preston http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-924 Jason Preston Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:18:29 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=459#comment-924 <a href="http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/#comment-923" rel="nofollow">Working Reporter</a> - It's funny - have some screen shots of the Financial Times "payment table" that explains how much access you get for what price sitting around on my hard drive somewhere. I remember looking at that and going "that's cool, I wonder if that's a good idea?" So far it seems like it's been a good idea. Thanks for bringing it back to the front of my mind! I think I'll ping the FT and see if I can't find someone over there who can talk about it. Working Reporter – It’s funny – have some screen shots of the Financial Times “payment table” that explains how much access you get for what price sitting around on my hard drive somewhere. I remember looking at that and going “that’s cool, I wonder if that’s a good idea?”

So far it seems like it’s been a good idea. Thanks for bringing it back to the front of my mind! I think I’ll ping the FT and see if I can’t find someone over there who can talk about it.

]]> By: Working Reporter http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-923 Working Reporter Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:27:00 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=459#comment-923 Jason: Just calling this to your attention -- some interesting thoughts on paid content from across the pond. http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/532328.php Jason: Just calling this to your attention — some interesting thoughts on paid content from across the pond.

http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/532328.php

]]> By: Jason Preston http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-598 Jason Preston Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:17:05 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=459#comment-598 @Working Reporter - you are 100% correct here. And I like the term "smart ads." They are definitely the holy grail for a lot of the problems, including to a large extent <a href="http://eatsleeppublish.com/finding-long-term-solutions-to-digital-plagiarism/" rel="nofollow">digital plagiarism</a>. The one issue is that splogs and spam republishing sites have to actually decide to HOST an ad network on their site, and they're unlikely to do that with a network that withholds money based on the simple, annoying fact that they didn't write it themselves. So while I agree that smart ads are the solution, I think the implementation needs to come from trusted ad networks, and it also means that companies need to stop buying ads on <em>un</em>trusted networks, which is the real problem... @Working Reporter – you are 100% correct here. And I like the term “smart ads.” They are definitely the holy grail for a lot of the problems, including to a large extent digital plagiarism.

The one issue is that splogs and spam republishing sites have to actually decide to HOST an ad network on their site, and they’re unlikely to do that with a network that withholds money based on the simple, annoying fact that they didn’t write it themselves.

So while I agree that smart ads are the solution, I think the implementation needs to come from trusted ad networks, and it also means that companies need to stop buying ads on untrusted networks, which is the real problem…

]]> By: Working Reporter http://eatsleeppublish.com/do-you-think-free-content-is-a-viable-path-for-independent-content-producers/comment-page-1/#comment-595 Working Reporter Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:32:01 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=459#comment-595 Short answer: No. Longer answer: Maybe, if the ads get smarter. Right now, the focus is on changing the content to make it cost-effective; making it shorter and snappier to appeal to a younger generation, in the theory that if the audience scales, the CPM rate will rise enough to pay for the content. But what if instead of changing the content, we changed the ads? What if the online ads became smart enough to associate themselves with specific content, instead of specific sites? What if they were able to distinguish between kind of content use -- from fair use quoting for criticism and debate through out-and-out republishing -- and divide their own revenue accordingly? Smart ads should be the holy grail -- they encourage and support content creation while permitting all the mashing up and repurposing that makes the Web powerful. The only losers would be the people who want to use other people's content for their own profit, and I have no problem with them losing. Imagine if the NY Times received ad revenue not only from its own site, but also from any site that reused that content -- more from aggregation sites who just republish the original article, less from sites that are using Times content to build new ad-supported work, none from everyday bloggers wanting to comment on the news on their own ad-free pages. Hard to know what the numbers would be, but judging from how wide a single Times column spreads right now, I suspect the income would be significant. Short answer: No. Longer answer: Maybe, if the ads get smarter.

Right now, the focus is on changing the content to make it cost-effective; making it shorter and snappier to appeal to a younger generation, in the theory that if the audience scales, the CPM rate will rise enough to pay for the content.

But what if instead of changing the content, we changed the ads? What if the online ads became smart enough to associate themselves with specific content, instead of specific sites? What if they were able to distinguish between kind of content use — from fair use quoting for criticism and debate through out-and-out republishing — and divide their own revenue accordingly?

Smart ads should be the holy grail — they encourage and support content creation while permitting all the mashing up and repurposing that makes the Web powerful. The only losers would be the people who want to use other people’s content for their own profit, and I have no problem with them losing.

Imagine if the NY Times received ad revenue not only from its own site, but also from any site that reused that content — more from aggregation sites who just republish the original article, less from sites that are using Times content to build new ad-supported work, none from everyday bloggers wanting to comment on the news on their own ad-free pages. Hard to know what the numbers would be, but judging from how wide a single Times column spreads right now, I suspect the income would be significant.

]]>