Is content a resource, or a final product?
Posted by Damian Damjanovski | Filed under Uncategorized
Some very interesting essays have been popping up around the internets surround the topic of Newspapers (and for that matter, other content providers) charging a small fee (micropayment) for access to their content.
Paul Graham argues that content has always been free, which is why the price has always been dependant on the medium. He goes on to argue that while yes, historically there has been some groups who have sold their content specifically, these business have been distinct from publishing (i.e. those who sell information).
His point is quite well made, and particularly on the topic of whether the content is just designed to value-add to the medium (i.e. Really expensive paper):
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.
The major exemption to this model obviously is software, which has charged for it’s information since the early 80’s. But again, movements in Open Source and Software as a Service show shift in that field too.
Michael Masnick from Techdirt.com expands on Paul’s points quite well, that despite the lower margins in online content distribution, the market itself becomes so much larger, that it in turns makes up for any margin reduction.
It will be most interesting to see how the newspaper industry specifically makes it out of all this, and whether their payments system will be effective and be able to support their current news-gathering structure.
September 21st, 2009 at 2:21 am
I'm not sure that rings true for professional publishing. You cover your costs, but the content has to be useful, add value, tell you stuff etc. Professional publishing moved to electronic form a long time ago and is still making money, last I heard. Part of what you are paying for is accredited expertise, which is where the newspapers might have lost their way. The cult of the personality has long since blurred the line in the heritage media between opinion and reportage, so if I'm going to pay than what exactly am I getting?