The COMRADITY Journal

Tweet Archives-transactions

Starting with most recent on September 24, 2009

no silver bullets for #futureofmedia , micropayments are a part of solution @mathewi RT @niemanlabs http://bit.ly/4lwF58 #futureofnews

@jeffreifman has done more thinking than most on transactions. http://bit.ly/ESOxk

@calmquiet Here's a working link: http://bit.ly/1tgrkG Look forward to sharing info w/you

@comradity Appreciate your links after "Stork does not deliver free news". But your bit.ly link to "Future of Local News" is... blank. fix?

'lesson is (not) people will suffer a tax if small enough..people are happy to pay if easy enough' http://bit.ly/2gyRx7 via @RobinSloan

@erickschonfeld re: People have never paid for content - True. But what do people THINK they are buying?

@jeffsonderman re: people never paid for content. May be true, but what do people THINK they are buying?

Eric Schmidt:paid for niche but not for gen'l interest. http://bit.ly/O1FAB ME: historic trends in broadcast imply same

"When game developers ask for money, they are usually pleasantly surprised." via lostgarden.com http://bit.ly/1atPLW

Consumers won't pay - myth or reality? http://bit.ly/xHcgd - My response to the comments on Barry Diller #what_the? #futureofmedia

Paid Content writes about links research - not so valuable [corrected link] http://bit.ly/17fCj5 #futureofmedia #futureofnews

Paid Content writes about links research - not so valuable http://bit.ly/17fuCj5 #futureofmedia #futureofnews

#freemium HBO offers no free 'trial' of "Bored to Death" http://bit.ly/7xws4 but Techdirt "bets on free" http://bit.ly/3WwRio

I'd bet iamnews.com via @steveouting would be more compelling if the pubs & c'tribs paid a mem. fee.

#opp'ty RT@steveouting O'Reilly may be an idiot but there's an online b'ness model in his VIP membership http://bit.ly/NvITM

Good points here. RT @DigiSociety TLF: Free is not exactly free. http://bit.ly/3DsRp1

news by donation #transaction RTeditor & pub http://bit.ly/miB1S via @lavrusik

RE: @glecharles Guy, I'm thinking about "If they don’t read, they’ll never pay" because this is contrary to the way mos… http://disq.us/cv6n

Spotify sells premium subs via non-virtual retailers. link to blog music ally: http://bit.ly/kQlqS ME:#opp'ty

Expect more premium (&paid) offerings from Pandora link to Paid Content http://bit.ly/waiRZ ME:Smart - but how market premium?

RT Huffington disses paid: http://bit.ly/nHRHh via @mathewi @NathanRudyk How IS she going to make $? SHE ISN'T http://bit.ly/3CPSdx

State of paid online newspapers http://bit.ly/tcg2q #paidmedia

@ajkeen The article "free killing tech entre . . " is gone.

Start by telling 'em what it's worth - how smart is that? RT @Mediazoic Moses Supposes - http://bit.ly/z5HTq hey @pricing what do u think?

response to Neiman Lab post on Micropayments http://bit.ly/EGiHX ME: 'one size will not fit all'http://bit.ly/EGiHX

@timoreilly my take http://bit.ly/1k9kOw on @nytimes article about "peer patronage": http://bit.ly/iYVEg

@GeorgeDearing Liked "Barry Diller's Brash New Pay-Wall Strategy" http://ff.im/-7i2dS ME: if you like that see this:http://bit.ly/ER0Ih

PRICELESS: RT @pricing RT @cindyalvarez If you don’t have a competitive advantage, don’t compete - Jack Welch

WOW! RT @vincrosbie re:paid vs. free ... keep dwelling on Alan Kohler directness http://bit.ly/gP8Xw

WOW! RT @Mediazoic Sirius Dock turns iPhone into Satellite Radio Receiver - WSJ.com (subs. req'd) - http://bit.ly/WkINJ (via @fyimusic)

@stevebuttry have updated post: What can gov't do? http://bit.ly/PEr9D to include @mmasnick. via @dkiesow http://bit.ly/D8ZDU

What should the gov't do to help the press? http://bit.ly/PEr9D @SaveTheNews, @jayrosen_nyu, @dangillmor, @jcstearn

What is the value multiplier of #realtime? Exponential in financial marketplace http://bit.ly/gJnaz

twitter premium will be available for $ http://bit.ly/YFdfQ

So how IS she going to make $? RT @mathewi RT @NathanRudyk: .. Arianna Huffington disses paid content http://bit.ly/nHRHh

RT @comradity: RT @cshirky News is subsidized by ads or interests. [comradity:pay dominant model has more independence]

RT @cshirky News is subsidized by ads or interests. [me:pay dominant model has more independence]

RT @cshirky RT@gingi0: why must 'public service'='free'? someone must pay.. [me: BINGO]

Affiliate fees and live events as rev streams for news: http://bit.ly/16mvFq

RT @BurrellesLuce "The Stork Does Not Deliver Free News" http://bit.ly/Qbqyz

@Joe, #skypic & @paulbradshaw Thanks! Standing up for Joe's rights may be tipping point. http://bit.ly/3Y0O0p

@Joe, Thanks! Standing up for your rights may be a tipping point for media and amateur rightsholders. http://bit.ly/3Y0O0p

value of live still high: all time high12 million tickets sold on Broadway last season per Eisner #aiof

RT GinaMChen What if #newspapers charged http://bit.ly/16xNar (on #savethemedia) #journalism [my reply to @josh] your analysis assumes . . .

@GinaMChen what will we pay for http://twurl.nl/2b3ht5 and how link economy could work in a paid media marketplace http://twurl.nl/5gregy

@wmougayar RT Bob Starr "news can't be monetized" http://bit.ly/7c9oS #journalism except D Berry or stop censoring our imaginations . . .

FT.com to introduce 1-click payment system next summer http://twurl.nl/zcdait

@CJAhearn how about rewarding "link-worthy" content, sites with responsive audiences, and active participants? http://twurl.nl/vqpjur

RE: #free, #freemium - Just posted "Freemium Facts" http://twurl.nl/3rgr7d to consider in contrast to @mark_cuban @chr1sa et al

lecture @chq: ken burns captivated almost 5000 paying people with a story - in words - no pictures - what was that about the power of free?

lect @chq: nyu film prof r. brown says cohn left rag b'ness to start columbia studios b-cuz "they pay first & no refunds if don't like it."

RE: @fredwilson When offered quality for premium, we pay: HBO subs & $ grew in 4th qtr 2008, despite economic crisis. … http://disq.us/1cto

RE: @fredwilson RADIO AND TV OPTED FOR FREE/AD-SUPPORTED MODEL B-CUZ HAD NO CHOICE: NO WAY TO COLLECT MONEY. http://disq.us/1ctm

" RE: @fredwilson bingo. I add more to simplify http://twurl.nl/urqgy7 It would take forever for a start-up to launch… http://disq.us/1ctj"

RT @comradity: @fredwilson RADIO/TV OPTED FOR FREE/AD-SUPPORTED MODEL B-CUZ HAD NO CHOICE: NO WAY TO COLLECT MONEY. http://disq.us/1ctm

RE Reuters @cjahearn request for idea & @fredwilson NYT lack of link. Here's my description of the barter system http://twurl.nl/zxukgd

RE: The subscription model is the first step to raising the bar. But can't sell quality product without quality promot… http://disq.us/1bzm

RE: @smalera I subscribe to WSJ.com and receive news alerts on my blackberry. I think this is a paid feature. It shou… http://disq.us/1byp

@fredwilson:solution to NYT offense = 2-way link w/barter system: Z # words or seconds (a/v) or image = $ Z - audience $ referrals @cjahearn

@cjahearn: what if reuters enabled content syndicators to barter high value content clips in real time for purchase referral fees?

RE: @wmougayar Right and right. Directionally, I've never understood the idea of giving away news analysis for free an… http://disq.us/1bih

RT Relax Bloggers AP isn't out to get you http://twurl.nl/p6kkl8 my comment:"what if they pay you?". . sat 25 jul 12:36

RE: We sell subscriptions by syndicating a player on contextually relevant sites. The player dynamically updates with … http://disq.us/1bgz

@jeffjarvis: if the old guard is so wrong why u reco new media replicate its free, ad-supported model?

@jeffjarvis Is AP the enemy of the internet? link economy = ad$. Advertisers shifting $ to create their own content http://twurl.nl/f0hgjs

RT @cshirky: RT @CJAhearn: Reuters offers alternative to AP (via @jeffjarvis:) COMRADITY knows how to optimize content syndication

@jayrosen RT For 180 years reader $ didn't cover costs http://tr.im/tG7P [me: did anyone care as long as ad$ gravytrain worked?]

RT @chr1sa Suicide?:David Simon paywall reco to NYT and WashPost http://bit.ly/45oaB8 [me: not suicide http://twurl.nl/hu6ty6]

@ajkeen I disagree w/ your review of FREE http://bit.ly/Dm3Jw. Mass media loves free. They have $ to keep the newbies out for long time.

The Economist calls Free "Nice but Tricky" http://twurl.nl/l0qqyh My summary of article and comment added here http://twurl.nl/vdbd2s

@chr1sa Thanks for the free offer.

keeping a running update of the reactions I'm reading to Free here: http://bit.ly/RlrMi

What's the future of 'Free'? I just chimed in here: http://bit.ly/MoePm

Agree with Guy Le Charles Gonzalez on The Free Debate http://bit.ly/yguA4

Mark Cuban is right. There is no free content. See comment # 56 to http://bit.ly/mB3bo

Will micropayments define the new paid media model?

As I discussed in the post "Will the paid media model be a donation one?"  there is no "one size fits all" solution when it comes to transaction technologies.  We need different transactions technologies to capitalize on the many different reasons consumers will be willing to pay.

Nieman Journalism Lab posted about Micropayment and the power of free, presenting a case of a software product which used micropayments and free to drive trial of a new product.   The case is presented as an example which could be analagous to selling media.

My response, as I've pointed out in other posts, anyone who says they have THE answer doesn't have THE answer:

I appreciate that you are looking at both sides of the issue.  But anyone who thinks free is the only way to get attention is overlooking other possibilities.  There are so many. And the fact is that you need to develop a situation that is right for your product, target, market. Anyone who tells you they have the "one size fits all" answer does not have an answer. 

For example, marketing a new technology product requires education while marketing a new music band requires referral. A new tech product is a  higher risk purchase than the other.  Technology can be more expensive, takes more time to adapt to, can screw up other technology, etc. etc.  Music is relatively low risk. A friend whose taste you like refers a song to you. For $.99 you download.  If you don't like it, delete it. You may not be so quick to bite on that friend's referral again.    

To accelerate success requires finding the core target who has the fewest hurdles to overcome.  For example, a new tech product should start with people who will learn fast, e.g., someone who is likely to have intimacy with the problem the technology solves.  In the case of Music - start with fans of similar artists.   

Anyone will try anything that is free.  Whether they need it or not.  Whether they understand why they need it or not.  Whether they like other things like it or not.  So the fact that many people will respond to a free offer may be absolutely meaningless.

However, if someone will pay a micropayment, you know you have someone who is interested and curious.  Anticipating what to communicate to an interested/curious person is a lot more effective then if they try the product for free.

Marketing in a highly competitive, evolved marketplace is a challenge that requires strategic thinking and hard work.  There are no easy answers.

Will the paid media model be a "donation" one?

I like the concept of supporting artists on the web through "patrons" but I don't think it is a business model, for several reasons.

First, it doesn't really solve the problem.  Creativity is not thriving because artists must take all the risk.   Creating content on the "hope" that a patron will support doesn't solve that problem.  The artist is consciously or sub-consciously creating art to attract patrons. 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for more consumer-oriented experiences. 

But patrons are less like consumers than they are like lobbyists.  They have a point of view and they will support art that communicates their message.  I don't blame anyone for having a point of view.  We all have one.

The problem is when a minority has "the floor,"  the "majority" is not served.  Potentially true in a "patrons" market.  

Many argue that's why free is important.  But I think history suggests that a "free for all" has just as much potential to lose the majority's interest.  Because in a "free for all" the loudest, most passionate voice dominates.  They have extreme opinions and don't care what anyone else thinks.  As with CB Radios, where communication was also a "free for all,"  the "majority" participated until "extreme" communicators took the civility out of the socializing.

As today's social network experiences offend the "majority" more and more (e.g., activists infiltrating facebook to galvanize support for their position by ridiculing someone on their own personal page) - demand for more civilized, controlled socializing will be high enough to command a premium price.  In other words, free social networks have convinced us that we want to socialize with people we don't even know on-line.  The next big idea will deliver solutions that protect the majority.  For example, post CB Radio, people were convinced they needed mobile communication and were willing to pay a premium for cellphones that offered private conversations - even if the reception was not as reliable as CB Radios. 

Instead of starting with a transaction system.  Let's start by developing superior entertainment and information brands that facilitate a civilized social experience.  

I happen to believe "live" is the gold standard to guide innovation. 

Then almost all types of transactions will be relevant - from micropayments to satisfy curiosity, subscriptions to stay connected through updates, memberships to be a part of the community.  The system should work both ways - rewarding quality content as well as quality participation.  Patronage is a way to reward the most popular artists in each community. 

What should gov't do to help the press?

One option floated in the LA Times is to lift Anti-Trust regulations on the newspaper industry to allow collusion. 

Permitting "collusion" to give media companies the confidence to charge for their content by dropping anti-trust oversight will not work.  But the government should help establish an entity to administer a "universal currency" to facilitate competition and innovation in a free market.

SaveTheNews.org provides a comprehensive review of why lifting Anti-Trust regulations to allow collusion goes against the principle of freedom of the press.  In Salon, King Kaufman, author of The Future of Journalism blog, writes "We must kill press freedom to save it."

Techdirt points out the reality that even with collusion, some competitors will seize the opportunity to take traffic from paid alternatives. 

I agree.  The so-called "collusion" strategy won't work for two key reasons.  First, media companies are wise to lack confidence in charging for content "as is" because consumers won't pay for it "as is."  Second, according to Robert Picard,  the current micropayment transaction system is not profitable.  The cost to administer and distribute payments to all stakeholders is too expensive. So it just won't solve the problem.

As Picard suggests, we need a universal system that rewards both small (Long Tail) and large publishers and programmers. 

It needs to be two-way.  After all, commercial websites benefit from links from personal sites and the low cost of user generated content.  As in many kids community websites, it should be a point system.  One is credited for linking clicks to a site or providing content for a site.  One is debited for consuming content- at two price points: a) for personal, non-commercial consumption and b)for publishing that content for commercial (for profit reasons).   Credits and debits are accumulated and netted out at the end of each month and a charge is made accordingly, like "Easy Pass" for road tolls.

Before everyone freaks out about the inevitability of taxes with a universal "currency."  As long as the system is facilitating everyone to make money (small to large companies) and the tax is on profits, isn't it worth it?

Who is the governing body?  Shouldn't it reflect the international constituency of the internet?  Is the IMF the model?

Katherine Warman Kern

@comradity

David vs. Goliath (or Joe got paid by Newscorp for his photo!)

@Joe (aka Joe Neale), stood up for his rights with Newscorp.  This may be a tipping point for media and amateur rightsholders, alike. 

When it becomes VERY efficient for Newscorp to get photos from content published on the Internet when there's a "frictionless" to pay for the right (i.e., standard rate card and one-click transaction). 

Is that in the best interest of the amateur publisher?  Let's see, if all 20,000 followers click thru to his blog (very doubtful) and a $12.00 cpm @jeffjarvis, it would take 25 advertisers to generate $300 in revenue.

This concept is not so blue sky.  The AP's new digital wrapper and syndication solution could become a 2-way system.  And Reuters @cahearn has offered to offer an alterative to the AP's solution for monetizing content syndication, maybe they would see the relevance of a two-way barter system of cash and/or credits.  See my thought starter: http://bit.ly/FqrZP

Here's how NOT to capitalize on audience participation

The Washington Post opens its article about FaceBook's purchase of FriendFeed by saying "Facebook just bought the rights to nearly everything you do online. And it cost them only $47.5 million." 

Given that FriendFeed offers a technology to aggregate all of your content and distributes it everywhere and the FaceBook user agreement gives them the right to your content, including to monetize it, you have now lost all rights to control and monetize your personal content on the all social network sites - not just Facebook. 

Of course there is no way sports and entertainment rightsholders are going to license their content to fans (as I proposed here) for a reasonable price if FaceBook will then have the right to monetize their content mashed with your personal content.

Yikes.  Isn't one of the downsides to the FREE/Ad supported b'ness model the tendancy to find one's self at odds with your consumers?  Doesn't the AP digital wrapper have more upside for consumers than Facebook's approach?

Bloggers should celebrate Murdoch's shift to paid online.

I am amazed by  bloggers who think Murdoch's shift to a paid business model is suicide for NewsCorp because bloggers will not embrace it. 

The good news is that when big media funds the development of a 1-click transaction system, it will be available to bloggers and other independent content creators. The opportunity to compete for dollars directly from consumers will create a much more level playing field than the FREE/ad supported business model.

Furthermore, with big media “retailing” their product, the value of links from the Long Tail creators will increase exponentially. Therefore, Big Media will provide a quid pro quo – affiliate fees, content licensing credits, subscription credits, etc.

This is a game-changing moment that will lead to new opportunity.

Content Licensing/Affiliate Fee/Subscription Transaction system

An idea for Chris Ahearn of Reuters who has requested alternatives to the AP digital wrapper system for charging for content licensing in whole or in clips.   Chris Ahearn of REuters has asked for ideas, is encouraging collaboration to improve the media marketplace: http://snurl.com/ouf4i

Our comment on this article follows and below is explanation of our idea . . .

Chris,

Encouraging to hear a voice promoting collaboration to improve the status quo instead of defending “what is.”

Bloggers, news aggregators, and traditional media all have opportunity to create new value for consumers and thus new revenues and profits.

We are passionate about the value of creativity. Our economy has suffered by a lack of creativity. One reason is the marketplace has pushed all the risk on the creators.

To “spread the risk” of creating, the market needs a 1 click transaction system that rewards quality content, media that inspires responsive audiences, and audience participation with integrity.

There are multiple ways Reuters may benefit from this kind of system. Ranging from the revenues generated from licensing its content to the new prospective content that could emerge from independent creators who would be enabled financially by a transaction system that connects quality content supply with the demand for it.

Consumers are demonstrating they will pay. Consumer purchases for media surpassed ad revenues in importance to communication revenues in 2004 (VSS). HBO, Showtime, et al are enjoying record subscription levels and profits.

Once a transaction system exists, creators and technology companies can focus on how to compete for those revenues.

THE IDEA:

The goal is to reward desired behavior.   Quality content is paid for, media sites with responsive audiences are rewarded with affilitate fees, and readers have a transparent way to identify what they want.  No more tricky, bait and switch tactics.

Here's how it works.

Fred is writing an article about the future of media.  He has two choices, set-up his point with several paragraphs of original copy,  or "buy" a NYT quote that does it in one sentence. Fred is a subscriber to the NYT.   His monthly subscription includes X # "clip content licensing" credits, access to content and a tool to find and interact with writers and like-minded readers.  So with one click, he acquires the quote and is debited a point.

I am subscriber to the NYT and Fred's blog.  When I read his post and I link to read the entire NYT article, his account accrues a credit point.

If the NYT wants to quote him, as they did today, referring to this post, the reverse would be true.  They would be debited a point and Fred would be credited a point.  If the NYT links send traffic to Fred, he would be debited and the NYT would be credited points.

Importantly, as a reader, I've subscribed to the bank too and I automatically pay a monthly subscription fee relative to the websites (blogs and papers) I subscribe to. I can add or delete these with one log-in and one click.

Monetize the Audience, not the Content

Fred Wilson has an interesting discussion going on in response to his post, "Monetize the Audience, not the Content,"   Essentially, his point is that subscriptions are the answer.  He points to FT.com where, according to him, they let you access for free until the 10th event. Then they require subscription.   His most important point is a "frictionless" solution. 

I pointed out that we have succeeded in generating interest in subscriptions by syndicating "teaser" content on contextually relevant sites that dynamically updates in real time what's happening.

I then responded to a comments about charging for news instead of archives.  I agree that it is dysfunctional that news companies give away news for free and charge for archives. But, agreeing with Fred that charging for Breaking News is difficult,   I point out that we have to consider all the competitors - including 24 hour news cable networks and radio - which are free.  However, there are ways to add value.  Later when Paul Smalera responded by clarifying, I responded to him by sharing the WSJ breaking news updates which I pay to have sent to my email/blackberry.  Wanting to encourage a discussion about what consumers will pay for, I shared my observations about the free/ad supported business model:

I think there are 3 thoughts to consider: 1) the business model radio and television used to disrupt the media industry - free, ad supported - may have made a lot of money for a short period of time for a few companies at the expense of print competitors, but it de-valued the media industry as a whole. When entering a market, one must contemplate that you could win. As Colin Powell said to Dick Cheney, "You break it, you own it." 2) disrupting the market by offering a superior product that will command a premium is much more fun on every level (to make, to sell, and to buy). 3) the law of market gravity is real: the price you start with will go down. So if you start free, then what? You may find cheaper ways to produce, sell, or finance, but the competition will not let you raise price without meaningful value improvement to the consumer.

Is the AP the enemy of the Internet?

Jeff Jarvis, NYU internet journalism professor claims that the  new AP digital wrapper solution makes the AP “ . . .the enemy of the internet because it is fighting the link and the link is the basis of the internet.”   According to Jarvis, links are the basis of the internet  because: “Links can be exploited and monetized; get links and you can grab audience and show ads and make money. Content is becoming a cost burden, what you have to have to get the links . . .”

Note that the latter quote is over a year ago when no one was worried about declining ad dollars. 

The truth is change is happening. So why not work with the AP to explore ways to make money directly from consumers?

Advertisers are moving online dollars from advertising to their own content development. And  consumers will continue to doubt the credibility of all content online because they don’t know who the real author is, what their agenda is, and how well researched it is.

It is time to stop hoping the advertising gravy train will continue and to start being consumer oriented.  When you think about being paid, you will get to know your customer and then advertisers will beg you for those insights and to borrow your credibility.  And, depending on the integrity of the publisher, the cycle will begin again.