The Economy of Free Is Stupid
The Economy of Free Is Stupid
by
Jason Falls
Jason Falls

There’s a lot I love about the Web 2.0 culture. Open source platforms and the abundance of free tools and technologies available to us all are chief among them. But there is also a fair amount of insanity in those approaches that I fear is creeping up on us.

The inspiration for this post was a conversation I had with a friend the other day who said, “I love my DVR. I haven’t watched a commercial in months.” When I asked him how long he expects to still be watching his favorite shows, he looked puzzled.

“The avoidance of those commercials means those shows will eventually be cancelled,” I said. “You’re killing your own chances of being able to watch them by watching just them.”

To be blunt, 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. The advertisers pay the production costs and salaries of those involved in the programs. If they don’t get a return on their investment in the programs, they don’t sponsor them, the shows get cancelled and you get pissed.

Any Jericho fans out there? Thanks for TiVo-ing it.

Out of BusinessWhile social media has emerged largely because most people grew sick of thousands of marketing messages each day. They turned to emerging online technologies that enabled connections with like-minded folks for recommendations and discussions around buying decisions, hobbies and more. The ensuing culture produced a library of free services and platforms. Don’t buy it. You can find something similar online for free. Today, online users are almost offended if they have to pay for a service.

With all due respect, Mr. Anderson, the Economy of Free culture we’ve created is, in a word, stupid.

If a tool is free, then you’re likely paying for it by having to view advertisements which support its costs. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Twitter, whose business model is perhaps the only thing on the planet more elusive than Osama Bin Laden.

Venture capitalists are running all around the world looking for the next platform or tool they think Google will pay too much money for, dumping millions of dollars into businesses no more sound than Wild Stallions. (Bonus points if you get the reference.)

What we’ve created is a marketplace that isn’t sustainable. For every FriendFeed, there are half a dozen Profilactics that were much better, but didn’t have a direct connection to some Silicon Valley big shot. Anyone who invested in the also rans lost money. While I’m not one to predict all the good ideas have been had, the disproportionate amount of money that is being poured into technology startups these days makes me shudder to think what the entrepreneurs will do when the investors come calling wanting their money back.

If you’re not selling to Google, Yahoo or Microsoft within 18 months, you’re probably toast.

Then there’s the general open source movement. I love open source software but relying upon the masses for its security and sustainability scares the bejeezus out of me. I use WordPress for a lot of online publishing. What happens if Mullenweg and company decide to go open a bar or something? What happens if a meteor hits Austin during South by Southwest?

Yes, I’ll be secure knowing LifestreamBackup.com has my back. (Gratuitous plug for my new venture, but meant as lighthearted fun, not, “Buy This!” Sorry.) But can we really count on the platforms and technologies we use? Sure, the longevity of a paid content management solution is no more predictable, but when I think of “the community” of the world, “trust” isn’t something that immediately jumps in my head.

All this Web 2.0 culture shift has created a disturbing attitude in most of us toward advertising as well. We DVR our favorite shows and skip the ads. We get pissed off when we go watch something on Hulu and have to sit through a 15-second car commercial. Hulu’s tag line is, “Watch Your Favorites. Anytime. For Free.”

But Hulu isn’t free. Watching the ad is the price of admission. If you don’t watch it, Hulu will either charge you a subscription fee or not let you watch your shows.

This is why advertising is not dead and why we need to wake up and smell the rich, pure aroma of our Folgers Coffee. The Economy of Free will only last so long.

Better save your money.

Is open source sustainable? Are venture capitalists leading the world in dumb moves right now? Can television shows survive without advertising? If so, will enough people pay to watch what they want to sustain entertainment as we know it?

A penny for your thoughts!

IMAGE: By Lou Oates on ShutterStock.com. Used with permission.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About the Author

Jason Falls
Jason Falls is the founder of Social Media Explorer and one of the most notable and outspoken voices in the social media marketing industry. He is a noted marketing keynote speaker, author of two books and unapologetic bourbon aficionado. He can also be found at JasonFalls.com.
  • Pingback: This Site()

  • Pingback: dostana()

  • Pingback: All About Fuel Cells & Alternative Fuel Vehicles | Best Hybrid Cars()

  • Pingback: JMW Kommunikation » Facebook är en ny bytesekonomi: användarnytta mot individdata()

  • Keep in mind many software platforms, like WordPress, is so widely
    used with large developer communities that you won't get stuck with
    something you ultimately can't use. At least with that example, the
    free software isn't a bad choice!

  • coffeemakers

    Jason, I guess you really opened up a can of worms. Just sat through another Web 2.0 seminar today that said I should seriously move into the free-er and easier WordPress for most development. That's daunting.

  • coffeemakers

    Jason, I guess you really opened up a can of worms. Just sat through another Web 2.0 seminar today that said I should seriously move into the free-er and easier WordPress for most development. That's daunting.

    • Keep in mind many software platforms, like WordPress, is so widely
      used with large developer communities that you won't get stuck with
      something you ultimately can't use. At least with that example, the
      free software isn't a bad choice!

  • John Owens

    Could you explain more on why some things will stay free and how that is different than DVR TV shows? Specifically, what free things will we soon have to pay for, and what things will always be free? What is the verdict on Craigslist.org, Couchsurfing.org, and Wikipedia.org?

    • Thanks John. I don't think we'll suddenly have to pay for things we
      now get for free. But when you think about it, you pay for DVR TV
      shows – cable bill and all. I just think that running businesses based
      on giving away the farm is dangerous territory. Can free be used to
      entice a deeper involvement with your customer base? Sure can. But at
      some point, you have to start charging for something. Thanks for the
      comment.

  • frederickdsouza

    my comment is big but in brief. just go to http://www.justfortheloveofit.org its about living without money and everybody helping each other just for the love of it. One should just have self control and go for needs only or else learn from the animals who just eat what they need. living for today, or one day at a time. meet me there at ID: goafenny

  • Pingback: To Free or not to Free - Social Networks()

  • Pingback: Free Or Paid Information Products? « Wicked Blogging()

  • Pingback: Is YouTube Destined for the Dot-Com Graveyard? « Hiring The Internet()

  • Pingback: To Own or be Owned: A Virtual Reality Check « The Social Critic’s Guide to Life, Faith, Politics & Media()

  • Pingback: Follow Friday, Blogger Style()

  • Kelly, all are possible and I'm sure to some extent, all will have to happen for television to continue to be viable.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

  • I wouldn't neccessarily disagree, Jim. WordPress is extremely versatile and well supported. As its creator, Matt Mullenweg, indicated above, it will be around long after he's gone. The community will support it.

    My argument was not that open source is the wrong idea or is going away. My point is that start ups thinking they can just throw something out there and hope for Google to buy them. It's not a smart business approach.

    Don't misunderstand. Open Source software is reliable, is stable and is safe. But it helps to know what you're getting into and consider all the angles. Worst case scenario, you can go in and change the code in WordPress to suit your needs. It's open.

  • BlackRiverBRAT

    Interesting and valid points, sir…one thing I'm wondering, though: might not the t.v. shows in your examples begin to try, oh, I don't know, cutting production costs instead of floundering because viewers aren't watching the ads? Perhaps actors and actresses will start getting paid less for memorizing lines. Perhaps the producers will start finding lucrative alternatives to seeking advertisers, or *gasp* advertisers will start making commercials that don't shout, scream, or insult our intelligence, inspiring us to not mind watching them. Just those two cents' worth. :-)

    Kelly in VT

  • BlackRiverBRAT

    Interesting and valid points, sir…one thing I'm wondering, though: might not the t.v. shows in your examples begin to try, oh, I don't know, cutting production costs instead of floundering because viewers aren't watching the ads? Perhaps actors and actresses will start getting paid less for memorizing lines. Perhaps the producers will start finding lucrative alternatives to seeking advertisers, or *gasp* advertisers will start making commercials that don't shout, scream, or insult our intelligence, inspiring us to not mind watching them. Just those two cents' worth. :-)

    Kelly in VT

    • Kelly, all are possible and I'm sure to some extent, all will have to happen for television to continue to be viable.

      Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Pingback: Is Free Good, Or Bad? | Front Office Box()

  • huangqin
  • jimsutter

    Jason, I guess you really opened up a can of worms. Just sat through another Web 2.0 seminar today that said I should seriously move into the free-er and easier WordPress for most development. That's daunting.

  • jimsutter

    Jason, I guess you really opened up a can of worms. Just sat through another Web 2.0 seminar today that said I should seriously move into the free-er and easier WordPress for most development. That's daunting.

  • jimsutter

    Jason, I guess you really opened up a can of worms. Just sat through another Web 2.0 seminar today that said I should seriously move into the free-er and easier WordPress for most development. That's daunting.

    • I wouldn't neccessarily disagree, Jim. WordPress is extremely versatile and well supported. As its creator, Matt Mullenweg, indicated above, it will be around long after he's gone. The community will support it.

      My argument was not that open source is the wrong idea or is going away. My point is that start ups thinking they can just throw something out there and hope for Google to buy them. It's not a smart business approach.

      Don't misunderstand. Open Source software is reliable, is stable and is safe. But it helps to know what you're getting into and consider all the angles. Worst case scenario, you can go in and change the code in WordPress to suit your needs. It's open.

      • I agree. WordPress is an amazing piece of software and will be around for a long time, but by itself it is not actually profitable for anyone. Matt was smart to recognize that to build a business on an open source platform, you had to break away from the actual platform. Automattic makes the money by maximizing what WordPress can do. Anyone can do the same thing and many do.

        Nice thoughts all around Jason.

  • Pingback: Jason Falls on “Free Stuff” – How Long Will It Last? « Amybeth Hale – Research Goddess()

  • Good thoughts, Matthew. Thanks for the input. I certainly don't see open source going away, just think it's a poor business model. I'm all for free stuff, but if I create something, there's value in that and I should be paid for it. Just think it's hard for a software company to hold out hopes for acquisition as they way to riches.

    As for advertising … you're probably close to right. It will morph into something … what I don't know.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Good thoughts, Matthew. Thanks for the input. I certainly don't see open source going away, just think it's a poor business model. I'm all for free stuff, but if I create something, there's value in that and I should be paid for it. Just think it's hard for a software company to hold out hopes for acquisition as they way to riches.

    As for advertising … you're probably close to right. It will morph into something … what I don't know.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Thanks Amybeth. Appreciate you stopping by again.

  • Thanks Amybeth. Appreciate you stopping by again.

  • Thanks Steve. I see your points and think there is certainly some validity to the service provider argument. But I also see some holes in it, depending upon the verticle. It's kind of the retailer-brand relationship. I buy my shoes directly from the manufacturer in most cases. The service provider (store) is seldom involved in my buying decision.

    However, with LifestreamingBackup.com, if we were to partner with, say, Google and backup options were part of your Google service, they would be the service provider and we would be the product. That would work, but we would also gladly offer the service outside of that type of arrangement.

    I don't see one way or the other winning simply because the world is too diverse in need and preference. Plus, retailers/service provider will always be able to move more product than the company itself.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Thanks Steve. I see your points and think there is certainly some validity to the service provider argument. But I also see some holes in it, depending upon the verticle. It's kind of the retailer-brand relationship. I buy my shoes directly from the manufacturer in most cases. The service provider (store) is seldom involved in my buying decision.

    However, with LifestreamingBackup.com, if we were to partner with, say, Google and backup options were part of your Google service, they would be the service provider and we would be the product. That would work, but we would also gladly offer the service outside of that type of arrangement.

    I don't see one way or the other winning simply because the world is too diverse in need and preference. Plus, retailers/service provider will always be able to move more product than the company itself.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Very well written article Jason. As an interactive marketer, web developer, and designer I face these questions regularly from the clients I work with in regard to open source platforms as we build most of our web solutions using the Joomla! CMS platform. But honestly the communities are growing at such a rate and supported so widespread I can't realistically see an abrupt end to any of the large platforms out there at the moment (WordPress, Joomla!, Drupal).

    As for the demise of television advertising, my view on that is that TV will continue to morph into a multimedia platform more like the Internet as time goes by. We are already seeing this with all the OnDemand content available and the opportunity that has afforded marketers with more contextually based television advertising. I wouldn't be surprised to one day see television morph into something very similar to Hulu as a whole someday….

  • Very well written article Jason. As an interactive marketer, web developer, and designer I face these questions regularly from the clients I work with in regard to open source platforms as we build most of our web solutions using the Joomla! CMS platform. But honestly the communities are growing at such a rate and supported so widespread I can't realistically see an abrupt end to any of the large platforms out there at the moment (WordPress, Joomla!, Drupal).

    As for the demise of television advertising, my view on that is that TV will continue to morph into a multimedia platform more like the Internet as time goes by. We are already seeing this with all the OnDemand content available and the opportunity that has afforded marketers with more contextually based television advertising. I wouldn't be surprised to one day see television morph into something very similar to Hulu as a whole someday….

  • Very well written article Jason. As an interactive marketer, web developer, and designer I face these questions regularly from the clients I work with in regard to open source platforms as we build most of our web solutions using the Joomla! CMS platform. But honestly the communities are growing at such a rate and supported so widespread I can't realistically see an abrupt end to any of the large platforms out there at the moment (WordPress, Joomla!, Drupal).

    As for the demise of television advertising, my view on that is that TV will continue to morph into a multimedia platform more like the Internet as time goes by. We are already seeing this with all the OnDemand content available and the opportunity that has afforded marketers with more contextually based television advertising. I wouldn't be surprised to one day see television morph into something very similar to Hulu as a whole someday….

    • Good thoughts, Matthew. Thanks for the input. I certainly don't see open source going away, just think it's a poor business model. I'm all for free stuff, but if I create something, there's value in that and I should be paid for it. Just think it's hard for a software company to hold out hopes for acquisition as they way to riches.

      As for advertising … you're probably close to right. It will morph into something … what I don't know.

      Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Jason I always love your posts. You make me think about both the good and the bad of social media. We must be careful what we ask for, because when we receive it, it's not always as awesome as we hoped for :) Great article!

  • Jason I always love your posts. You make me think about both the good and the bad of social media. We must be careful what we ask for, because when we receive it, it's not always as awesome as we hoped for :) Great article!

  • Jason I always love your posts. You make me think about both the good and the bad of social media. We must be careful what we ask for, because when we receive it, it's not always as awesome as we hoped for :) Great article!

    • Thanks Amybeth. Appreciate you stopping by again.

  • Pingback: How Long Will Your Free Content Ride Last? « Hiring The Internet()

  • Pingback: Medienlinks zum Wochenstart: “Freemium” als Geschäftsmodell — CARTA()

  • Pingback: Medial Digital – Medien, digitale Medien, Medienwandel, Journalismus, Internet, soziales Internet, Social Web, Web 2.0» Linktipps Neu » Linktipps zum Wochenstart (17)()

  • I can't see anyway round the death of the 30 second slot. But, there is hope for the future of entertainment. And, that hope lies in brand placement. It can work. And, it can be entertaining. I can prove it. Just watch my short story at the following web address.

  • I can't see anyway round the death of the 30 second slot. But, there is hope for the future of entertainment. And, that hope lies in brand placement. It can work. And, it can be entertaining. I can prove it. Just watch my short story at the following web address.

  • I can't see anyway round the death of the 30 second slot. But, there is hope for the future of entertainment. And, that hope lies in brand placement. It can work. And, it can be entertaining. I can prove it. Just watch my short story at the following web address.

  • Pingback: Midcourse Corrections » Blog Archive » The Rise Of The Gift Economy And Freeconomics()

  • “It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.”

    You don't pay your developers? Or QA? Or provide them with equipment? Yes, all of this is zero if you're a volunteer open source project, but if no one ever pays developers how do they eat and pay rent? Do they work other non-dev jobs and develop in off hours? Do they work for a commercial software vendor and do OS stuff in their offhours? In both cases someone else is subsidizing the cost of the open source development then.

    Let's get rid of the silly notion that development costs go to zero – they don't unless your developers are rich or getting paid in a day job and contributing to your project in off time. The latter case simply means that the cost TO YOU is zero, but unless someone pays them they will not eat.

    And Google has started t prove… what? That they can create software like Gmail and make it free to the end user? Of course they can *because advertisers pay*. Not for Gmail, but for ads. Sans the ad revenue Google gets, Gmail and the other free to the user products would not exist. With zero revenue from any source Google would not exist. Simply because one party doesn't pay for something doesn't mean it's free.

    What you and others sharing your position always ignore is that, while digital distribution is trending to zero and we can model it as an abundance economy, the people behind those digital goods need to get paid somehow because the physical economy… rent, food, transportation, clothing – is NOT free or close to it. The payment can come from the person using the digital good directly, it can come from them indirectly via ads or it can come indirectly from other means (for example selling analytics on top of the user data). But if no one ever gets paid the goods will not be created. Even for people who say “i do this (meaning coding, music, art, etc) as a hobby, in my spare time” are just saying that they get subsidized. That might be via a day job, a spouse who supports them or another method… but if they want to eat and have somewhere to sleep, someone, somewhere has to pay for that.

  • “It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.”

    You don't pay your developers? Or QA? Or provide them with equipment? Yes, all of this is zero if you're a volunteer open source project, but if no one ever pays developers how do they eat and pay rent? Do they work other non-dev jobs and develop in off hours? Do they work for a commercial software vendor and do OS stuff in their offhours? In both cases someone else is subsidizing the cost of the open source development then.

    Let's get rid of the silly notion that development costs go to zero – they don't unless your developers are rich or getting paid in a day job and contributing to your project in off time. The latter case simply means that the cost TO YOU is zero, but unless someone pays them they will not eat.

    And Google has started t prove… what? That they can create software like Gmail and make it free to the end user? Of course they can *because advertisers pay*. Not for Gmail, but for ads. Sans the ad revenue Google gets, Gmail and the other free to the user products would not exist. With zero revenue from any source Google would not exist. Simply because one party doesn't pay for something doesn't mean it's free.

    What you and others sharing your position always ignore is that, while digital distribution is trending to zero and we can model it as an abundance economy, the people behind those digital goods need to get paid somehow because the physical economy… rent, food, transportation, clothing – is NOT free or close to it. The payment can come from the person using the digital good directly, it can come from them indirectly via ads or it can come indirectly from other means (for example selling analytics on top of the user data). But if no one ever gets paid the goods will not be created. Even for people who say “i do this (meaning coding, music, art, etc) as a hobby, in my spare time” are just saying that they get subsidized. That might be via a day job, a spouse who supports them or another method… but if they want to eat and have somewhere to sleep, someone, somewhere has to pay for that.

  • “It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.”

    You don't pay your developers? Or QA? Or provide them with equipment? Yes, all of this is zero if you're a volunteer open source project, but if no one ever pays developers how do they eat and pay rent? Do they work other non-dev jobs and develop in off hours? Do they work for a commercial software vendor and do OS stuff in their offhours? In both cases someone else is subsidizing the cost of the open source development then.

    Let's get rid of the silly notion that development costs go to zero – they don't unless your developers are rich or getting paid in a day job and contributing to your project in off time. The latter case simply means that the cost TO YOU is zero, but unless someone pays them they will not eat.

    And Google has started t prove… what? That they can create software like Gmail and make it free to the end user? Of course they can *because advertisers pay*. Not for Gmail, but for ads. Sans the ad revenue Google gets, Gmail and the other free to the user products would not exist. With zero revenue from any source Google would not exist. Simply because one party doesn't pay for something doesn't mean it's free.

    What you and others sharing your position always ignore is that, while digital distribution is trending to zero and we can model it as an abundance economy, the people behind those digital goods need to get paid somehow because the physical economy… rent, food, transportation, clothing – is NOT free or close to it. The payment can come from the person using the digital good directly, it can come from them indirectly via ads or it can come indirectly from other means (for example selling analytics on top of the user data). But if no one ever gets paid the goods will not be created. Even for people who say “i do this (meaning coding, music, art, etc) as a hobby, in my spare time” are just saying that they get subsidized. That might be via a day job, a spouse who supports them or another method… but if they want to eat and have somewhere to sleep, someone, somewhere has to pay for that.

  • Challenging thoughts Jason.

    Particularly because we're on the other side of the thinking.

    It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.

    The conclusion we came to was people would produce even more software, all of which would need to compete in the world of “Free”.

    The good news would be the end of the domination of established vendors. The bad news being providers would need to find a different way of making money – not from license fees but because people were using their software.

    There's no pretense of rocket science here – Google had already started proving the point.

    Permission to show ads obviously has some value, but it's probably limited. There's just too much competition for that to work for new entrants.

    We think the answer lies in disintermediation of the major brands and owning mind share.

    Basically users trusts the service provider more than they trust big brands so they'll buy through the service provider.

    At this point the problem becomes firstly a) building the relationship through adoption and secondly b) reducing churn by continually finding new ways to add value.

    I'm guessing you've already figured this out with your new venture and interested to understand your take on the challenges.

    Steve

  • Challenging thoughts Jason.

    Particularly because we're on the other side of the thinking.

    It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.

    The conclusion we came to was people would produce even more software, all of which would need to compete in the world of “Free”.

    The good news would be the end of the domination of established vendors. The bad news being providers would need to find a different way of making money – not from license fees but because people were using their software.

    There's no pretense of rocket science here – Google had already started proving the point.

    Permission to show ads obviously has some value, but it's probably limited. There's just too much competition for that to work for new entrants.

    We think the answer lies in disintermediation of the major brands and owning mind share.

    Basically users trusts the service provider more than they trust big brands so they'll buy through the service provider.

    At this point the problem becomes firstly a) building the relationship through adoption and secondly b) reducing churn by continually finding new ways to add value.

    I'm guessing you've already figured this out with your new venture and interested to understand your take on the challenges.

    Steve

  • Challenging thoughts Jason.

    Particularly because we're on the other side of the thinking.

    It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.

    The conclusion we came to was people would produce even more software, all of which would need to compete in the world of “Free”.

    The good news would be the end of the domination of established vendors. The bad news being providers would need to find a different way of making money – not from license fees but because people were using their software.

    There's no pretense of rocket science here – Google had already started proving the point.

    Permission to show ads obviously has some value, but it's probably limited. There's just too much competition for that to work for new entrants.

    We think the answer lies in disintermediation of the major brands and owning mind share.

    Basically users trusts the service provider more than they trust big brands so they'll buy through the service provider.

    At this point the problem becomes firstly a) building the relationship through adoption and secondly b) reducing churn by continually finding new ways to add value.

    I'm guessing you've already figured this out with your new venture and interested to understand your take on the challenges.

    Steve

  • Challenging thoughts Jason.

    Particularly because we're on the other side of the thinking.

    It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.

    The conclusion we came to was people would produce even more software, all of which would need to compete in the world of “Free”.

    The good news would be the end of the domination of established vendors. The bad news being providers would need to find a different way of making money – not from license fees but because people were using their software.

    There's no pretense of rocket science here – Google had already started proving the point.

    Permission to show ads obviously has some value, but it's probably limited. There's just too much competition for that to work for new entrants.

    We think the answer lies in disintermediation of the major brands and owning mind share.

    Basically users trusts the service provider more than they trust big brands so they'll buy through the service provider.

    At this point the problem becomes firstly a) building the relationship through adoption and secondly b) reducing churn by continually finding new ways to add value.

    I'm guessing you've already figured this out with your new venture and interested to understand your take on the challenges.

    Steve

    • “It seems a long time ago now we had a conversation about what happens when the cost of (producing) software drops to zero, or close to it.”

      You don't pay your developers? Or QA? Or provide them with equipment? Yes, all of this is zero if you're a volunteer open source project, but if no one ever pays developers how do they eat and pay rent? Do they work other non-dev jobs and develop in off hours? Do they work for a commercial software vendor and do OS stuff in their offhours? In both cases someone else is subsidizing the cost of the open source development then.

      Let's get rid of the silly notion that development costs go to zero – they don't unless your developers are rich or getting paid in a day job and contributing to your project in off time. The latter case simply means that the cost TO YOU is zero, but unless someone pays them they will not eat.

      And Google has started t prove… what? That they can create software like Gmail and make it free to the end user? Of course they can *because advertisers pay*. Not for Gmail, but for ads. Sans the ad revenue Google gets, Gmail and the other free to the user products would not exist. With zero revenue from any source Google would not exist. Simply because one party doesn't pay for something doesn't mean it's free.

      What you and others sharing your position always ignore is that, while digital distribution is trending to zero and we can model it as an abundance economy, the people behind those digital goods need to get paid somehow because the physical economy… rent, food, transportation, clothing – is NOT free or close to it. The payment can come from the person using the digital good directly, it can come from them indirectly via ads or it can come indirectly from other means (for example selling analytics on top of the user data). But if no one ever gets paid the goods will not be created. Even for people who say “i do this (meaning coding, music, art, etc) as a hobby, in my spare time” are just saying that they get subsidized. That might be via a day job, a spouse who supports them or another method… but if they want to eat and have somewhere to sleep, someone, somewhere has to pay for that.

    • Thanks Steve. I see your points and think there is certainly some validity to the service provider argument. But I also see some holes in it, depending upon the verticle. It's kind of the retailer-brand relationship. I buy my shoes directly from the manufacturer in most cases. The service provider (store) is seldom involved in my buying decision.

      However, with LifestreamingBackup.com, if we were to partner with, say, Google and backup options were part of your Google service, they would be the service provider and we would be the product. That would work, but we would also gladly offer the service outside of that type of arrangement.

      I don't see one way or the other winning simply because the world is too diverse in need and preference. Plus, retailers/service provider will always be able to move more product than the company itself.

      Thanks for the thoughts.

  • You're right, Michael. I didn't mean to infer that not selling to a big company in a short time is failure. Many startups have good products and solid plans with decent marketing and are perfectly successful companies on their own. But I think there are a lot of startups, tools, websites and more out there started by two nimrods with a dream of getting rich who don't think the product through, have no solid business plan and know nothing about marketing. There's a lot that go by the wayside. Those are holding out the sell to Google dream when they'd have a hard time signing up users beyond their friends.

    Thanks for the push back though. Good to have folks keeping me honest.

  • You're right, Michael. I didn't mean to infer that not selling to a big company in a short time is failure. Many startups have good products and solid plans with decent marketing and are perfectly successful companies on their own. But I think there are a lot of startups, tools, websites and more out there started by two nimrods with a dream of getting rich who don't think the product through, have no solid business plan and know nothing about marketing. There's a lot that go by the wayside. Those are holding out the sell to Google dream when they'd have a hard time signing up users beyond their friends.

    Thanks for the push back though. Good to have folks keeping me honest.

  • You're right, Michael. I didn't mean to infer that not selling to a big company in a short time is failure. Many startups have good products and solid plans with decent marketing and are perfectly successful companies on their own. But I think there are a lot of startups, tools, websites and more out there started by two nimrods with a dream of getting rich who don't think the product through, have no solid business plan and know nothing about marketing. There's a lot that go by the wayside. Those are holding out the sell to Google dream when they'd have a hard time signing up users beyond their friends.

    Thanks for the push back though. Good to have folks keeping me honest.

  • Interesting thoughts, Carson. The networks fighting against DVRs is certainly a plausible thought, though I'm sure there's a connection there (GE owns NBC and makes DVRs, I'd suspect … anecdotally, that is. Haven't looked it up.) that would flaw the possibility. Still, it certainly would make sense.

    And you're probably right about the usage of DVRs. I'll go look it up and probably feel like my argument is a little less supported. Heh. Thanks for the continued conversation. Great thoughts.

  • Interesting thoughts, Carson. The networks fighting against DVRs is certainly a plausible thought, though I'm sure there's a connection there (GE owns NBC and makes DVRs, I'd suspect … anecdotally, that is. Haven't looked it up.) that would flaw the possibility. Still, it certainly would make sense.

    And you're probably right about the usage of DVRs. I'll go look it up and probably feel like my argument is a little less supported. Heh. Thanks for the continued conversation. Great thoughts.

  • Interesting thoughts, Carson. The networks fighting against DVRs is certainly a plausible thought, though I'm sure there's a connection there (GE owns NBC and makes DVRs, I'd suspect … anecdotally, that is. Haven't looked it up.) that would flaw the possibility. Still, it certainly would make sense.

    And you're probably right about the usage of DVRs. I'll go look it up and probably feel like my argument is a little less supported. Heh. Thanks for the continued conversation. Great thoughts.

  • I think the movement does have little to do with business actually. I believe the movement itself has everything to do with building tools and sharing information. I think the businesses built on open source tools are fine but that is different than Free services. For example Wozniak was part of the Homebrew computer club, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_… , and took those ideas to build Apple computers. Anyone could have taken that same open source hardware and tweaked the concept a little and done the same but they couldn't have given the stuff away for free. I think you are on the right track with Free is stupid as a business model but it isn't stupid as a way to create tools for people to use and learn from.

    I think your second thread of thought on how media continues to function without advertisements is more interesting. Don't DVRs only represent a fraction of the population watching shows? Couldn't it be that it actually weeds out a fraction that isn't interested in the advertisements? Then maybe the DVR makers monetize that segment differently. If the networks feel it too much they could play any number of tricks to break the ability for DVRs to record shows and I think some of that has started. It is just an evolution.

  • I think the movement does have little to do with business actually. I believe the movement itself has everything to do with building tools and sharing information. I think the businesses built on open source tools are fine but that is different than Free services. For example Wozniak was part of the Homebrew computer club, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_… , and took those ideas to build Apple computers. Anyone could have taken that same open source hardware and tweaked the concept a little and done the same but they couldn't have given the stuff away for free. I think you are on the right track with Free is stupid as a business model but it isn't stupid as a way to create tools for people to use and learn from.

    I think your second thread of thought on how media continues to function without advertisements is more interesting. Don't DVRs only represent a fraction of the population watching shows? Couldn't it be that it actually weeds out a fraction that isn't interested in the advertisements? Then maybe the DVR makers monetize that segment differently. If the networks feel it too much they could play any number of tricks to break the ability for DVRs to record shows and I think some of that has started. It is just an evolution.

  • carsonmcdonald

    I think the movement does have little to do with business actually. I believe the movement itself has everything to do with building tools and sharing information. I think the businesses built on open source tools are fine but that is different than Free services. For example Wozniak was part of the Homebrew computer club, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_… , and took those ideas to build Apple computers. Anyone could have taken that same open source hardware and tweaked the concept a little and done the same but they couldn't have given the stuff away for free. I think you are on the right track with Free is stupid as a business model but it isn't stupid as a way to create tools for people to use and learn from.

    I think your second thread of thought on how media continues to function without advertisements is more interesting. Don't DVRs only represent a fraction of the population watching shows? Couldn't it be that it actually weeds out a fraction that isn't interested in the advertisements? Then maybe the DVR makers monetize that segment differently. If the networks feel it too much they could play any number of tricks to break the ability for DVRs to record shows and I think some of that has started. It is just an evolution.

  • carsonmcdonald

    I think the movement does have little to do with business actually. I believe the movement itself has everything to do with building tools and sharing information. I think the businesses built on open source tools are fine but that is different than Free services. For example Wozniak was part of the Homebrew computer club, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_… , and took those ideas to build Apple computers. Anyone could have taken that same open source hardware and tweaked the concept a little and done the same but they couldn't have given the stuff away for free. I think you are on the right track with Free is stupid as a business model but it isn't stupid as a way to create tools for people to use and learn from.

    I think your second thread of thought on how media continues to function without advertisements is more interesting. Don't DVRs only represent a fraction of the population watching shows? Couldn't it be that it actually weeds out a fraction that isn't interested in the advertisements? Then maybe the DVR makers monetize that segment differently. If the networks feel it too much they could play any number of tricks to break the ability for DVRs to record shows and I think some of that has started. It is just an evolution.

    • Interesting thoughts, Carson. The networks fighting against DVRs is certainly a plausible thought, though I'm sure there's a connection there (GE owns NBC and makes DVRs, I'd suspect … anecdotally, that is. Haven't looked it up.) that would flaw the possibility. Still, it certainly would make sense.

      And you're probably right about the usage of DVRs. I'll go look it up and probably feel like my argument is a little less supported. Heh. Thanks for the continued conversation. Great thoughts.

  • “If you’re not selling to Google, Yahoo or Microsoft within 18 months, you’re probably toast.”

    I think your last reply to Carson cleared up your point in the above comment, but I think not selling to those companies within 18 months as a mark of failure is an absurd idea. If you don't currently have or you are on a course to not have a solid product or service that can stand on its own you have bigger problems.

  • “If you’re not selling to Google, Yahoo or Microsoft within 18 months, you’re probably toast.”

    I think your last reply to Carson cleared up your point in the above comment, but I think not selling to those companies within 18 months as a mark of failure is an absurd idea. If you don't currently have or you are on a course to not have a solid product or service that can stand on its own you have bigger problems.

  • “If you’re not selling to Google, Yahoo or Microsoft within 18 months, you’re probably toast.”

    I think your last reply to Carson cleared up your point in the above comment, but I think not selling to those companies within 18 months as a mark of failure is an absurd idea. If you don't currently have or you are on a course to not have a solid product or service that can stand on its own you have bigger problems.

  • “If you’re not selling to Google, Yahoo or Microsoft within 18 months, you’re probably toast.”

    I think your last reply to Carson cleared up your point in the above comment, but I think not selling to those companies within 18 months as a mark of failure is an absurd idea. If you don't currently have or you are on a course to not have a solid product or service that can stand on its own you have bigger problems.

    • You're right, Michael. I didn't mean to infer that not selling to a big company in a short time is failure. Many startups have good products and solid plans with decent marketing and are perfectly successful companies on their own. But I think there are a lot of startups, tools, websites and more out there started by two nimrods with a dream of getting rich who don't think the product through, have no solid business plan and know nothing about marketing. There's a lot that go by the wayside. Those are holding out the sell to Google dream when they'd have a hard time signing up users beyond their friends.

      Thanks for the push back though. Good to have folks keeping me honest.

  • I don't disagree, but think that it's wrong not to think that the open source movement has little to do with business, particularly in technology these days. Everyone thinks they can build a web-based platform, give away the main gist of it and become Matt Mullenweg. (Or the Google guys or Zuckerberg.) That's a dangerous expectation.

    From a high level perspective, I just think there's a whole lot of modeling based on open source platforms going on out there from startups without a whole lot of strategy in how they're going to be profitable. All of them seem to think, “Well do this for 18-24 months and Google will buy us.” For many, they quickly become rather disappointed in the outcomes.

    But thanks for the push back.

  • I don't disagree, but think that it's wrong not to think that the open source movement has little to do with business, particularly in technology these days. Everyone thinks they can build a web-based platform, give away the main gist of it and become Matt Mullenweg. (Or the Google guys or Zuckerberg.) That's a dangerous expectation.

    From a high level perspective, I just think there's a whole lot of modeling based on open source platforms going on out there from startups without a whole lot of strategy in how they're going to be profitable. All of them seem to think, “Well do this for 18-24 months and Google will buy us.” For many, they quickly become rather disappointed in the outcomes.

    But thanks for the push back.

  • I don't disagree, but think that it's wrong not to think that the open source movement has little to do with business, particularly in technology these days. Everyone thinks they can build a web-based platform, give away the main gist of it and become Matt Mullenweg. (Or the Google guys or Zuckerberg.) That's a dangerous expectation.

    From a high level perspective, I just think there's a whole lot of modeling based on open source platforms going on out there from startups without a whole lot of strategy in how they're going to be profitable. All of them seem to think, “Well do this for 18-24 months and Google will buy us.” For many, they quickly become rather disappointed in the outcomes.

    But thanks for the push back.

  • It's interesting to see different models and different approaches. It's also interesting to see how they evolve (or fail to) over time. Certainly we're in for some interesting changes in how broadcast television works around the world. Here's hoping you get to keep that £144 soon.

  • It's interesting to see different models and different approaches. It's also interesting to see how they evolve (or fail to) over time. Certainly we're in for some interesting changes in how broadcast television works around the world. Here's hoping you get to keep that £144 soon.

  • It's interesting to see different models and different approaches. It's also interesting to see how they evolve (or fail to) over time. Certainly we're in for some interesting changes in how broadcast television works around the world. Here's hoping you get to keep that £144 soon.

  • Honored by the visit Mr. M. I don't disagree. The open source portion of my argument is probably the weakest link because it has already been proven, largely by the community you've helped create. But I still think the overall premise of open source is a dangerous row to hoe for startups and technology platforms. It has to be an exceptional product to be free and still sustainable or have the company be profitable as a result of the spinoffs, plugins and more.

    You've set a high standard. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to replicate for most anyone else.

    Consider it a compliment, like the one you've paid me by chiming in. Thank you, sir.

  • Honored by the visit Mr. M. I don't disagree. The open source portion of my argument is probably the weakest link because it has already been proven, largely by the community you've helped create. But I still think the overall premise of open source is a dangerous row to hoe for startups and technology platforms. It has to be an exceptional product to be free and still sustainable or have the company be profitable as a result of the spinoffs, plugins and more.

    You've set a high standard. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to replicate for most anyone else.

    Consider it a compliment, like the one you've paid me by chiming in. Thank you, sir.

  • Honored by the visit Mr. M. I don't disagree. The open source portion of my argument is probably the weakest link because it has already been proven, largely by the community you've helped create. But I still think the overall premise of open source is a dangerous row to hoe for startups and technology platforms. It has to be an exceptional product to be free and still sustainable or have the company be profitable as a result of the spinoffs, plugins and more.

    You've set a high standard. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to replicate for most anyone else.

    Consider it a compliment, like the one you've paid me by chiming in. Thank you, sir.

  • Thanks for stopping by Caren.

  • Thanks for stopping by Caren.

  • Thanks for stopping by Caren.

  • Thanks, Mark. That'll be $1.00 (US). Heh.

  • Thanks, Mark. That'll be $1.00 (US). Heh.

  • Thanks, Mark. That'll be $1.00 (US). Heh.

  • But who is going to pay for the unlimited capacity?

  • But who is going to pay for the unlimited capacity?

  • But who is going to pay for the unlimited capacity?

  • Cable TV (or Satellite fees) mostly go to pay for the delivery infrastructure. The advertising still pays for the shows. If you don't watch the ads and the brands advertising don't see lift from their involvement, the ads go away and the show dies.

    Jerico was canceled because it couldn't sell ads to sustain the show and ratings weren't good. Fox would love a sci-fi show that had ratings and ad revenues. It's short-sighted to think a TV show is canceled for any other reason. TV is a business. You either are profitable or you get canceled. End of story.

    You're right. We need a new model, though. I like micropayments in some form, but agree as well there isn't a great system out there yet.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • Cable TV (or Satellite fees) mostly go to pay for the delivery infrastructure. The advertising still pays for the shows. If you don't watch the ads and the brands advertising don't see lift from their involvement, the ads go away and the show dies.

    Jerico was canceled because it couldn't sell ads to sustain the show and ratings weren't good. Fox would love a sci-fi show that had ratings and ad revenues. It's short-sighted to think a TV show is canceled for any other reason. TV is a business. You either are profitable or you get canceled. End of story.

    You're right. We need a new model, though. I like micropayments in some form, but agree as well there isn't a great system out there yet.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • Cable TV (or Satellite fees) mostly go to pay for the delivery infrastructure. The advertising still pays for the shows. If you don't watch the ads and the brands advertising don't see lift from their involvement, the ads go away and the show dies.

    Jerico was canceled because it couldn't sell ads to sustain the show and ratings weren't good. Fox would love a sci-fi show that had ratings and ad revenues. It's short-sighted to think a TV show is canceled for any other reason. TV is a business. You either are profitable or you get canceled. End of story.

    You're right. We need a new model, though. I like micropayments in some form, but agree as well there isn't a great system out there yet.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • Carson

    I think you went the wrong direction in thinking there is a connection between Free the business model and open source free. People have been doing open source for a long time and most are not doing it for money. That is completely different than VC backed web 2.0 Free where the VCs and others are certainly looking for money. Free as a business model has proven to be bad, just rewind to the late 1990s.

  • Carson

    I think you went the wrong direction in thinking there is a connection between Free the business model and open source free. People have been doing open source for a long time and most are not doing it for money. That is completely different than VC backed web 2.0 Free where the VCs and others are certainly looking for money. Free as a business model has proven to be bad, just rewind to the late 1990s.

  • Carson

    I think you went the wrong direction in thinking there is a connection between Free the business model and open source free. People have been doing open source for a long time and most are not doing it for money. That is completely different than VC backed web 2.0 Free where the VCs and others are certainly looking for money. Free as a business model has proven to be bad, just rewind to the late 1990s.

  • Carson

    I think you went the wrong direction in thinking there is a connection between Free the business model and open source free. People have been doing open source for a long time and most are not doing it for money. That is completely different than VC backed web 2.0 Free where the VCs and others are certainly looking for money. Free as a business model has proven to be bad, just rewind to the late 1990s.

    • I don't disagree, but think that it's wrong not to think that the open source movement has little to do with business, particularly in technology these days. Everyone thinks they can build a web-based platform, give away the main gist of it and become Matt Mullenweg. (Or the Google guys or Zuckerberg.) That's a dangerous expectation.

      From a high level perspective, I just think there's a whole lot of modeling based on open source platforms going on out there from startups without a whole lot of strategy in how they're going to be profitable. All of them seem to think, “Well do this for 18-24 months and Google will buy us.” For many, they quickly become rather disappointed in the outcomes.

      But thanks for the push back.

  • In the uk we have the bbc, its not paid for by advertising at all, its funded by the public via a tv license fee £144 a year, with all the digital tv out there, sky, virgin media etc there is a greater call for the bbc to be funded by advertising. In the uk its illegal not to have a license even if you don't watch the bbc – we basically pay the fee for about 4 or 6 channels. Its annoying because I have hundreds of channels on sky and don't really watch the bbc, so would welcome advertising.

    That said the advertising budgets are suffering here in the uk, the credit crunch is not helping and many have turned to online advertising.

  • In the uk we have the bbc, its not paid for by advertising at all, its funded by the public via a tv license fee £144 a year, with all the digital tv out there, sky, virgin media etc there is a greater call for the bbc to be funded by advertising. In the uk its illegal not to have a license even if you don't watch the bbc – we basically pay the fee for about 4 or 6 channels. Its annoying because I have hundreds of channels on sky and don't really watch the bbc, so would welcome advertising.

    That said the advertising budgets are suffering here in the uk, the credit crunch is not helping and many have turned to online advertising.

  • In the uk we have the bbc, its not paid for by advertising at all, its funded by the public via a tv license fee £144 a year, with all the digital tv out there, sky, virgin media etc there is a greater call for the bbc to be funded by advertising. In the uk its illegal not to have a license even if you don't watch the bbc – we basically pay the fee for about 4 or 6 channels. Its annoying because I have hundreds of channels on sky and don't really watch the bbc, so would welcome advertising.

    That said the advertising budgets are suffering here in the uk, the credit crunch is not helping and many have turned to online advertising.

  • In the uk we have the bbc, its not paid for by advertising at all, its funded by the public via a tv license fee £144 a year, with all the digital tv out there, sky, virgin media etc there is a greater call for the bbc to be funded by advertising. In the uk its illegal not to have a license even if you don't watch the bbc – we basically pay the fee for about 4 or 6 channels. Its annoying because I have hundreds of channels on sky and don't really watch the bbc, so would welcome advertising.

    That said the advertising budgets are suffering here in the uk, the credit crunch is not helping and many have turned to online advertising.

    • It's interesting to see different models and different approaches. It's also interesting to see how they evolve (or fail to) over time. Certainly we're in for some interesting changes in how broadcast television works around the world. Here's hoping you get to keep that £144 soon.

  • Open source is actually far more resilient than proprietary software. If I decided to open a bar, the numerous companies and individuals reliant on WordPress could continue the development. This isn't theoretical, this is actually how WordPress itself started, as a fork of an existing blogging system whose development had stopped (b2). WordPress code and community will outlive me.

  • Open source is actually far more resilient than proprietary software. If I decided to open a bar, the numerous companies and individuals reliant on WordPress could continue the development. This isn't theoretical, this is actually how WordPress itself started, as a fork of an existing blogging system whose development had stopped (b2). WordPress code and community will outlive me.

  • Open source is actually far more resilient than proprietary software. If I decided to open a bar, the numerous companies and individuals reliant on WordPress could continue the development. This isn't theoretical, this is actually how WordPress itself started, as a fork of an existing blogging system whose development had stopped (b2). WordPress code and community will outlive me.

  • Open source is actually far more resilient than proprietary software. If I decided to open a bar, the numerous companies and individuals reliant on WordPress could continue the development. This isn't theoretical, this is actually how WordPress itself started, as a fork of an existing blogging system whose development had stopped (b2). WordPress code and community will outlive me.

    • Honored by the visit Mr. M. I don't disagree. The open source portion of my argument is probably the weakest link because it has already been proven, largely by the community you've helped create. But I still think the overall premise of open source is a dangerous row to hoe for startups and technology platforms. It has to be an exceptional product to be free and still sustainable or have the company be profitable as a result of the spinoffs, plugins and more.

      You've set a high standard. I'm just saying it's going to be hard to replicate for most anyone else.

      Consider it a compliment, like the one you've paid me by chiming in. Thank you, sir.

  • thanks for posting such an amazing post..
    i gain great information
    thanks a lot, i'm looking forward to your next post

    Great Day

    Caren Tanady

    Online Publishing Secret

  • thanks for posting such an amazing post..
    i gain great information
    thanks a lot, i'm looking forward to your next post

    Great Day

    Caren Tanady

    Online Publishing Secret

  • thanks for posting such an amazing post..
    i gain great information
    thanks a lot, i'm looking forward to your next post

    Great Day

    Caren Tanady

    Online Publishing Secret

  • thanks for posting such an amazing post..
    i gain great information
    thanks a lot, i'm looking forward to your next post

    Great Day

    Caren Tanady

    Online Publishing Secret

  • thanks for posting such an amazing post..
    i gain great information
    thanks a lot, i'm looking forward to your next post

    Great Day

    Caren Tanady

    Online Publishing Secret

  • thanks for posting such an amazing post..
    i gain great information
    thanks a lot, i'm looking forward to your next post

    Great Day

    Caren Tanady

    Online Publishing Secret

  • I'm a little late to the party, Jason, but, damn, good post. Someone always pays or else nothing gets made.

  • I'm a little late to the party, Jason, but, damn, good post. Someone always pays or else nothing gets made.

  • I'm a little late to the party, Jason, but, damn, good post. Someone always pays or else nothing gets made.

  • I'm a little late to the party, Jason, but, damn, good post. Someone always pays or else nothing gets made.

  • I'm a little late to the party, Jason, but, damn, good post. Someone always pays or else nothing gets made.

  • I'm a little late to the party, Jason, but, damn, good post. Someone always pays or else nothing gets made.

    • Thanks, Mark. That'll be $1.00 (US). Heh.

  • Pingback: Internet Marketing, Strategy & Technology Links – June 30, 2009 « Sazbean()

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

  • Simon

    If any of you knew anything about Free, you'd know that it's not advocating a world of gratis stuff, it's advocating a world of innovative business built on infinite capacity. So the struggling novelist can use unlimited distribution to find an audience (like Scott Sigler does), TV shows can find waysto monetize through merchandising or premium sales, and so on. This whole ranting article is just expressing fear of change.

    That fear is understandable. Unlimited bandwidth capacity is a game changer for many industries and will possibly up-end them. Maybe TV drama will die. Maybeit will down-scale it's glossy production values. Maybe it will evolve. None of this changes the fact that unlimited capacity is here though, it is free, and users respond appropriately to that market value.

    • But who is going to pay for the unlimited capacity?

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

  • Tommy

    You are wrong about the DVR stuff. He did pay the price of admission (the price for cable tv), so they have no right to charge extra. Had it been free over the air, you would have been right.

    Jerico was canceled because Fox don't like successful scifi shows, they cancel almost all of them.

    As for Hulu.com, you might be right but I wouldn't know since they don't allow non us ip address to access their precious movies.

    But we need a new model. Advertising isn't going to solve the problem, and it isn't appropriate for everything. Micro payments might work if they are simple and hassle free enough to use. I have not seen any such yet.

    • Cable TV (or Satellite fees) mostly go to pay for the delivery infrastructure. The advertising still pays for the shows. If you don't watch the ads and the brands advertising don't see lift from their involvement, the ads go away and the show dies.

      Jerico was canceled because it couldn't sell ads to sustain the show and ratings weren't good. Fox would love a sci-fi show that had ratings and ad revenues. It's short-sighted to think a TV show is canceled for any other reason. TV is a business. You either are profitable or you get canceled. End of story.

      You're right. We need a new model, though. I like micropayments in some form, but agree as well there isn't a great system out there yet.

      Thanks for chiming in.

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

    Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Why? Read the whole article. Gladwell makes him look kinda short-sighted:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/200

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

  • Great post – you know I deal with this almost 24/7 at work, especially on Twitter.

    • I'm sure. I love the people who say “WiFi should be free everywhere.” Well, sir. Who the hell is going to pay the electric bill, the bandwidth charges, the infrastructure upkeep, etc.?

      Go Boingo and be happy. (Shameless plug for ya, JP.)

      • It's those little things that people don't think about – like, oh, actually setting it up. :)

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

  • ben

    I think you have some good points here, however I don't completely agree. The next generation of kids is going to be so use to free TV, free music, free everything they will be shocked when they actually have to pay for things. Its troubling.

    I do think that advertising will never go away. Since man has been able to communicate they have been sell/advertising. I think with TV for example traditional commercials will fade away however we will see a Ton of product placements. Its already increasing, ABC's Whip Out did it with Ice Age just the other day. Just about every computer used in TV shows now away is positioned well enough that you can clearly see its a mac.

    I think basic things will continue to be free, but advertisers will just become smarter with how they choose to communicate with potential buyers.

    • I think things will change, but I don't think today's kids will get everything handed to them. That's the preparation I allude to in the post. We're spoiled but we can't continue to expect something for nothing. It just won't work in the long run.

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Hmm, I have to take back at least part of my criticism of Anderon earlier…

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/gla

  • Pingback: The Economy of Free Is Stupid | Social Media Explorer()

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

  • As a starving creator of novels and comic books and an unemployed radio announcer, the unsustainable nature of the “free” culture is all too apparent to me. Where do folks think the nice pictures, cool music, content in general, comes from? It's the old goose/golden egg thing, isn't it? The culture has grown so used to getting things for free it's become harder and harder to make a living as a creative provider. Crazy.

    • I hear you, Mike. I only hope the system finds a way to change before the creatives like you give up. Hang in there, man.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Many thanks, sir. I've been known to stir the pot from time to time. Appreciate the acknowledgment.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

    And here's your new model.

    We're working hard to make it happen.

  • 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'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.

    • Might be the best comment of them all. Well played, sir.

  • 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.

    • More good fodder for thought there Kip. Thanks for that perspective. You're right that the Freemium slant allows for granularity. I just wonder how many people will really want to pay for certain shows. Will the variety of cable channels thus implode? Interesting.

  • 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

    • Interesting spin on it Mark. Will have to chew on that. Thanks for the thought starter.

  • “…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.

    • Excellent points, sir. Thanks for chiming in. Nothing to disagree with there, really. Thanks.

  • 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.

    • 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 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

    • Thanks for the thoughts James. Depending upon your niche, just being a good guy can indeed drive business. Network well, know who to trust and do good work. Individually, that works. Good luck!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.”

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

      Thanks Stuart.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • Thanks Jason.

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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

  • 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

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

      • Thanks Jason.

      • I agree the free economy is unsustainable.

        And here's your new model.

        We're working hard to make it happen.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

  • Ben Stroup

    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.

    • 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.

  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
  • Sharon
    • Oooh. Goody. I love Gladwell.

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

  • 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”.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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, 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!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • Thanks!

  • 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!

  • 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 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

  • Joe

    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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • gkrew

    Great post

  • 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

    • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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'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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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

    • Me too, Mike. Thanks for stopping by.