Re: UKNM: Subscriptions

[Clay Shirky]

> Now, I agree that this is happening, but I don't agree that it is the right

> way to go.


Its not our choice. 


Its up to the consumers to tell us which way to go - if they like to

pay, pay services will thrive. If they don't like to pay, pay services

will go free or die. There is fuck all we can do about this - in the

absence of a monopoly, we have no leverage.


> (i)    Speed of delivery - where content needs to be delivered quickly (i.e.

> real time stock prices for milli second trading), content has a value.

> (Interesting that real time stock prices, although falling in value to $5

> for as much as you can eat, still (to my knowledge) are charged.


Not in the States. Its now a hook to get people to subscribe to

trading services. that will happen here as well. 1999 is the year UK

online trading will take off.


> (ii)    Accuracy - as above really.


URL? I can't off the top of my head think of any site where people pay

for accuracy. Its no good saying "Well, it stands to reason that

people will give us money if we just do X" - the Web is littered with

sites that reasoned that people would pay for content or access or

plugins or game playing or stock quotes or tech info or ...


> (iii)    Exclusivity - if you can't get it elsewhere, then you can charge

> for it.  The problem that many top UK/US sites have is they have generic

> content from newsfeeds.


No, the problem is that exclusivity doesn't exist separate from price

- the question on the web, where every competitor is a click away, is

not "Will users pay for this?" but rather "Will users pay for this

after they've taken a look at what they can get for free from our

competitors?" 


> (iv)    Editorial voice/Opinion - if you trust an editorial voice, you are

> more likely to pay for it.  That's why we buy into media brands when the

> same content (expressed differently) is available elsewhere for a cheaper

> price (e.g. Times v Guardian)


URL? Who out there is paying for "edtorial voice"? The two for-fee

journals I know, Wall Street Journal and TheStreet, charge fees

because their value proposition is helping their readers make money,

not delivering editorial voice, and the two places which reasoned as

you do, the New York Times and Slate, both failed. 


> (vi)    Depth/Breadth - look at archives, or specialist books.


Now I think you're on to something - charging for searchable access to

archives does seem to be a pay-as you go business model that works,

provided your database is really worthwhile, though I suspect the

places using this model (nytimes.com, lexisnexis.com, eb.com) will

still reduce their prices over the next 12 months.


> I just wish that we would stop for a minute and examine the paid for

> content model online again in the UK, (which will undoubtedly work

> for niche sites)


URLs of these niche sites for which this model will "undoubtedly" work?


-clay 

********************

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.

Email Khalil Ibrahimi

khalilexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilexcitecorp [dot] com)

 to advertise on Excite.

********************

Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html