Paul Graham writes another typically coherent piece on post-medium publishing. His point is that publishers have based their business models on their distribution medium of choice as opposed to explicitly charging for content. As he writes, "Economically, the print media are in the business of marking up
paper", and goes on to say: "What happens to publishing if you can't sell content? You have two
choices: give it away and make money from it indirectly, or find
ways to embody it in things people will pay for."
He rejects iTunes as an example of people paying for content comparing it to a toll rather than a store. I'm not sure I agree. Just because someone pays a small amount of money for content, they're still paying, no? In the UK, there is a true tax in the form of the TV license that funds the BBC and other broadcasters, but that's still a form of payment - it just feels different to us. Actually, I think we'll see more of these types of models - say a fee that's bundled into your ISP bill to cover access to content or a service like spotify or hulu.
It's such a time of change and uncertainty for the content industries. But I'm sure we'll look back upon this period a few decades hence and shake our heads about all the hand-wringing and find it hard to believe that we had such a hard time figuring out the model.
Btw I found Paul's definition of content to be the most succinct I've seen thus far: Content is information you don't need.""
Comments