social media explorer

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

Jason: Definitely a great post. As KSU's Bill Sledzik noted in his tweet about it, this “everything is free” is something I've thought about as well. (My URL link goes to a recent post about what I call the “big Internet ruse.)

Free is great — but there IS a cost. It could be in service, convenience or, as you noted, the short shelf life of a TV show.

Nothing in life is truly free.
Hope others get the message, too.
-Mike

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

I'm with you.

But the bottom line is that user expectations have shifted. We expect the world with virtually nothing in return. We are the generation that grew up hearing that “We are the world” and that we can be anything we set our hearts to becoming.

You are right. But the networks need to adapt as well. Networks need to rethink their revenue model and value in a digital age, and Hulu was only the first step.

There is a reason that Fox has better shows by and large, than TBS. The networks have 70 years of heritage, history and know how. They spend top dollar to get it right. And this is why so much UGC online just isn't that good that regularly (with many exceptions).

I agree that we as consumers are not doing our part to be part of the solution, but I don't know that most networks or content owners have yet done their part to meet the users halfway.

A few examples of success:
Hulu vs Megavideo etc – Hulu streams are now all over the pirate sites
Turner vs Ustream – Turner livestreamed their NBA playoff games. ESPN didn't, and the Ustream numbers were incredible.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Great points Jason, but advertisers have no one but themselves to blame, for creating bland, boring, cookie-cutter spots. Most people do love watching great ads, and what makes them great is that we WANT to see them again and again. As long as Cialis thinks its clever to portray romance as sitting in separate antique bathtubs, separated by a good four inches of solid porcelain, I'll keep fast-forwarding past it. Along with all the other 30-second works of junk out there. Perhaps TiVo will actually raise the level of entertainment in advertising. Because while the shows may not survive without the ads, neither will the brands they're about. Both have a stake in pushing for more entertainment value.

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Agreed Chris, but I think the brands have a number of different ways to reach consumers. The television shows don't have a number of different ways to generate revenue. Brands will survive, though perhaps not at the high profit levels they all so long for, but television shows will all but cease to exist if the public continues to mistakenly think they don't have to pay a bit of admission (watching the ads) to see them.

Thanks for the comment

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

Sorry. Times are changin'. Forced advertising viewing will die and new models will rise up. Check VRM for some work in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_Relationshi…

As for Open Source, it's already the bedrock of the Web via Linux and Apache and it's doing quite well, thank you. If Mullenweg and company should open a bar, WordPress lives on under the GNU General Public License. It's not tied to them. http://wordpress.org/about/gpl/

Yeah, times change. Advertising dies and new models rise up. The transition will be difficult and some good TV shows may be lost in the shuffle as “consumers” become “agents” and “collaborators.” Best to look forward and embrace the future rather than try to keep the old models in place.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

I hear you, Jon, but if the expectation of expecting the world with nothing in return persists, including rejecting advertising, it doesn't matter how networks meet consumers halfway. They'll either have to pay the admission fee of watching the ads or pay a subscription fee for the shows. Until someone builds a better system, I don't see how that won't play out.

Thanks for chiming in.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

It is because of this post that I will subscribe. Keep up the great work.

I teach Social Media 101 classes here in Oklahoma City and I keep preaching to people that twitter will have a paid model. I am thinking a pro version where information is more trusted. I am also thinking they need to go decentralized, and we need to pay for that infrastructure.

Thoughts?
Patrick
http://patrickallmond.com

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Great post

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jason, you nailed it.

This is really a continuation of the Napster-centric attitudes that flourished. The companies that tried to embrace the digital revolution ended up getting shafted by the very people they hoped would show them 'love' for getting it.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

I remember when Eudora was either paid for my me, the subscriber, or paid for by ads which I agreed to have run in payment for the app. And, I notice that because of subscription tv (remember, there is a greater portion of non webbies than webbies) ad tv is worse today than ever. Interestingly, folks who can't pay for the subscription service, can't pay for the prime time objects of advertising, either. We're so into capitalism we can't even imagine another way of doing things.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

Jason, I think your analysis is short sighted.

Digital content consumption actually holds more promise to make money. This is because the content provider can track exactly who views what content for how long and when. Not only is this valuable stand alone data (i.e., market research), it can allow advertisers to target their messages to exactly their target and no one else. That means they will pay much higher rates than they are paying currently.

I know this doesn't solve the short term cash problem but ultimately this is how money will be made in Web 2.0. If a consumer is uncomfortable with this data be tracked, they will pay a subscription.

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I have no idea what Wild Stallions is, so no bonus points for me.

If the content is good enough, then at least some people might be willing to pay for it. It's been successful in television with premium channels like HBO and Showtime. People want the content but not the ads, so they pay extra.

It seems like it's an either-or proposition right now between advertising and subscription, and the subscription model just hasn't seemed to have gotten any traction on the Web. Hybrid models (like in-show product placement) have emerged cautiously, as I think most people are very skeptical of overt product placement in shows and the advertisers/brands have so much less control over the message. The Masters is an interesting example – heavily sponsored with very limited commercials during the tournament.

Personally, I don't mind 1:30 of ads on Hulu, versus the 8:00 I would get watching the same show on TV. But your overall point is correct – nothing is free, and someone has to pay the bills. If users aren't willing to do it through subscription, then they need to be willing to tolerate some form of advertising or sponsored content. That content may not necessarily need to be traditional, :30 spots (many of which are garbage; I agree with Chris Lombardo there), but some sort of advertising model will have to emerge that gives the brands the exposure and returns that they seek.

@amymengel

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

I'm certainly not one to rest in the ways of the past, but I don't think vendor or customer relationship management models are the end all and be all. Sometimes people don't want to raise their hand and be a member of a club. While I, and my agency, are strong believers and advisors on how to build brand enthusiasts and know it's one path to building a strong brand, it's not the only way. Besides, a CRM program for a TV show won't pay production costs unless they charge a subscription, which gets back to the point. Until someone invents a new way, we have to pay, even if it is by looking at pretty ads.

Thanks for chiming in, though. Great points.

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Twitter would have already had a paid model if they weren't so dumbstruck at their success. My prediction still holds. They'll sell to Google. Then we can rest assured there will be ads, but it won't be screwed up too bad.

Thanks for subscribing!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks, Ike. I just hope we're braced for the fall out when the economy proves true and folks gotta fork over some ducets for their stuff.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks VL. I think your last point nails it. We're stuck. I hope we figure out better model, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think so.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Good thoughts, Joe. I still think we are a ways off from the finite targeting (and higher ad rates) you speak of being the acceptable system, but I agree it is entirely possible. The problem still exists, however, that the audience is still rejecting even the thought of advertising, so as short sighted as one side of my thoughts might be, if the present thinking prevails, it's still a long term conundrum.

Thanks for the push back. Much appreciated.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

Well said, Amy. Thanks for the thoughts. It's interesting to try and think of how we might solve the problem, isn't it?

As for the Wild Stallions, sorry the joke was lost on you. I don't want to ruin it for someone else, though. Heh.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

You'll probably find that 10% of people are willing to pay for 10% of the content which enables the 90% to watch for “free”.

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

In a similar vein:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200…

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

The issue I take with this post is the acceptance of the assumption that advertising must drive media. I think people pay for great content and will continue to do so. The bane of the hurting media industry right now is that they built their business off advertising instead of content. People reacted to that by dropping subscriptions which in turn led to the loss of advertising.

A great example of a healthy media model is Conde Nast. I pay about $50/year for my subscription to the New Yorker. Why? Because it's filled with great writing and great content.

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 a n individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 a n individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

I agree with the general premise of this post. The way some people think of advertising is alarming. The sense of entitlement some people have is utterly disturbing. Something has to give or a lot of good programming, online publications and communities or services will continue to disappear.

I always say that, if I like something, I don't think “hey, I want the people behind this to struggle for 60 years and then die, penniless!” If someone creates something cool, I want them to be wealthy. That, more than not, means the service will continue and/or they'll continue creating. My monetary goal in life, in managing my websites, is not to just get by, or to just pay my bills, it's to live independently and, hopefully, grow wealth.

It's like people claiming that 99 cents or $1.29 for an individual song isn't a “reasonable” price. Do you know how many people are behind most of the tracks you hear on the radio? Performing artists or groups, producers, engineers, songwriters, assistants. Not even counting labels, the cost of studio time, marketing, styling, distribution costs, the design of that cover for the single and on and on. It's amazing.

Find a new business model, some people say. How many different models are there? You can sell something (like the music industry does), you can have advertisements (like most web properties do) or you can have a subscription model (like some newspapers and publications have done). And, yet, you'll find people saying that all three of those are old models.

Here's the issue. Don't tell me it's a bad model. Give me a new model. If you have a model that you guarantee will pay all my bills right now, I'm all ears.

Thanks,

Patrick

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

Guess I lucked out on the timing of this. Thanks!

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

While I agree, Ben, that the issue is that the problem is that business models were built on advertising rather than subscriptions, the world is in for a rude awakening if everything is suddenly sans advertising but at a fee. Conde Nast has certainly innovated in their business model and will survive longer than others as a result. But if you take all the ads out of Newsweek but make me pay $10.00 a copy and you can keep your magazine.

Print isn't the ideal example here, especially when my advertising is admission rant is more appropriately aimed at television. I don't pay to watch House now (other than my cable/satellite subscription which somehow doesn't seem the same). If I suddenly had the show blocked out unless I paid $5.95 an episode to watch (or similar), I'd probably just not watch House.

The advertising model appears all but irreversible at this point. My argument is that while we can work toward a better model, this seemingly righteous vent we have about content being free is setting us up to be very disappointed.

Thank you, a lot, for the discourse.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

Amen, brother O. Give me a new model. Well said.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

There are already 26 comment, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Yes, “open” is sustainable. Look at YouTube, Google has said they're perfectly find subsidizing it for now; though, eventually it will probably turn into a profitable site in some fashion anyway. But that's not really an appropriate example is it?

I tend to look at the problem this way: it's forcing marketers to be more creative & innovative. We don't live in the same B&W TV, one-per-household days. Not to mention there has been enough deplorable marketing in the last 50 years that has ruined the public's opinion of ads. People hate ads because they've been shown enough that just waste their time. Why do you think people flock to social media so much in general? It lets them cut through the fat. Just because that doesn't monetize correctly for you doesn't mean there isn't a trend there.

People don't necessarily want everything free. They just want to know it's worth their while. More salient advertising is just one step in the right direction, and there's no doubt that traditional marketing methods just don't apply to social marketing (for the most part). As marketers, we can't just continue to broadcast, broadcast, broadcast.

It'll be exciting to see how the Economy of Free becomes supported in better ways that start to appropriately grab people's attention again. “Freemium” plans may help for some sites, but for the big players like Facebook & Twitter I can't see it working.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

Free sucks for businesses. You can't get around that. If you rely on a free model? God help you. I have no idea why you would ever do that. The newspapers essentially took a shotgun to their head when they went with this model. Online advertising is not a killer way to make money and it never will be.

It's like the Joker said: “If you are good at something, don't do it for free.”

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

I can assure you, Tyler, YouTube makes millions of dollars in advertising revenue and branded channels. To play there as a brand at all is hundreds of thousands of dollars (for video contests, etc.). I will say that while the advertising is less obtrusive, at some point the community will still reject it, if they don't already subconsciously. When pre-roll ads came on board, there was sufficient outcry. As those interruptive methods continue to annoy people, there will be resistance. You're right in that it may not be the best example, but I think it will be on the other side of the coin at some point. We can't just keep throwing ads at people.

But you're also right that the challenge is for creativity and innovation. I hope this means someone will come up with a better solution to our ad/subscription business models soon. Or perhaps just better ad delivery systems.

Thanks for the feedback.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Agreed. I think free can work its way in there in most cases, but you gotta pay da bills, yo.

Thanks Stuart.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

Wow. The NERVE of folks that want Big Love and True Blood and ESPN and The Masters and the Super Bowl for FREE!! That idea cannot sustain itself. I pay $80 a month for cable, which mostly sucks, but there is enough quality there that I prefer it over surfing the web for a bunch of 400×300 internet video, sorry. The satellite dish is even better. Sure I skip a few ads now and then, but don't really care if they keep the shows on the air. The reason we see all these heinous reality TV shows is because that's what the networks are willing to pay for in the absence of true ROI. Sad, too, because they are REALLY bad.

I think the promise of these social tools we work with is their ability to enhance the relationship between advertisers and the audience in such a way that ads could become more useful, less intrusive, and more efficiently delivered to those that care. So instead of clamoring for free everything, why don't we take the free stuff we already have and build better relationships with our customers? Jason, your work is already proof of the benefits of quality. I'd by bourbon out of that vending machine if I could! If we are all open to reality, ads don't have to be a total drag.

Great post.

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

I do love facebook, twitter, wordpress, blogger, youtube, ustream, joomla, drupal, jotform, animoto and many others. As a biz to biz communications guy I haven't fully opinionated on whether life is easier or harder. My view is that if you've got a lot of overhead, your standard of life is going to get much tougher because those with the knowledge are going to be running circles around you. I feel like I've had to jump into the deep end with free and try to figure out how to monetize it as I go. If I helpful my connected community along the way, hopefully they'll think of me when they do need some project help or when they just can't find the time.

James R Sutter
DVP Multimedia, Ltd.
Cincinnati OH

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

Great thoughts and I couldn't agree more. That is the thing about the whole web 2.0 culture that bothers me as well, more as someone with a business mentality. Free kills business, and it directly is affecting me and my startup. We want to charge because we are offering a good product to users, but if we charge they will leave for a free version. You can't survive as a business with free, and too many web 2.0 companies are fully looking only to be acquired and bought out, and the odds of that are so small. Businesses need to have a revenue model, whether advertising or other ways. Instead of having a million of the same sites come out offering the same thing just slightly different trying to get bought up, they should go into it with a business model in plan. I think we will begin to see a shift, because the smaller companies like mine can't afford to keep the lights on and keep things free. Business will start charging for the service or product and people should not have an issue paying if the product is worth it.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

“…those that think they’ve been getting their television for free all these years are short-sighted, if not ignorant. Your admission charge has been watching the commercials.”

Exactly so. The currency of exchange has always been either money or time, time or money. Someone is always investing one to attract the other.

The founding principle of FREE puts too much weight on the assumption that spending time (which is, in my opinion, wildly undervalued) will somehow attract money. Creating content or open-source code, for example, will drive online traffic, and that will bring in paying customers… Or so the thinking goes.

(In Twitter's case, the thinking appears to be that spending time – aka VC money – will drive inspiration for a revenue model… eventually.)

The flaw usually falls somewhere in the conversion between all the traffic you attract and getting someone in the crowd to actually pay for something. But if you build your entire marketing model around FREE, then chances are you're attracting a certain type of customer, if you know what I mean.

I can't speak for the open source model. But, in marketing, the FREE movement is sort of invitation marketing run amok. Free content works only if you target and attract customers typically accustomed to pay for services, and you demonstrate there's much more valuable content available… for a price.

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Jason!

There is no economy of free, of course. The economy is the economy, which is driven by supply and demand. And there is no shortage of a supply of people providing things for free and the demand has risen up to consume it!

This is not sustainable, but it may not have to be. In the old days, you would create a product around a customer want or need and sell the hell out of it. Today, a product built around the necessity for “community” have to lose money for months or years before it dominates its space to the extent that it can be monetized. That's what Google did and what Twitter is trying to do.

So there is no “economy of free,” but there is certainly a new “strategy of free” that will have to lead to eventual monetization.

Mark Schaefer
@markwschaefer

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

Jason,

Free is never “free” I am sure your dad has told you that many times. To agree with Patrick “ifroggy” free is about coming up with new business models that don't suck like many of the online ad supported ones do today.

The freemium model though also does the same thing the Internet did when it first started. It makes things more granular. People are tired of paying for stuff they don't want. Its not about watching adds on Hulu, it is about canceling your cable because you really only like 2 shows and you are happy to watch them with commercials online instead of paying for all of the other crap you don't want.

Freemium is gives companies the ability to get granular and give people what they really want. Regardless any business including TV that relies solely on advertising as its only revenue stream is eventually doomed to failure.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

I'll pay attention to Anderson on Free when I can walk in the bookstore and grab his book for free.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

Fantastic comment. We are living through a massive VC funded economic experiment.

It will only stop when investors finally realize that free doesn't work.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

And here's your new http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/' rel=”nofollow”>model.

We're working hard to make it happen.

Dude!! Love you for your heart. I don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions, but who the hell cares? This is blogging the way it is supposed to be. Opinionated, but backed up. Not afraid to take a stand. I think your brand is built more by how you say it (in this case) than what you say. Well done.