MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Bob Russell · 07-17-2006, 10:11 PM

That's the question that publisher Joe Wikert is asking - "Would you pay money to read blogs?"

While he realizes that the obvious answer is "Of course not!", he points out that there might be circumstances that it would be worth a few dollars a year to get some content that you really want to read. Now, as a publisher, I'm sure he tends to find paying for content more palatable than the general public, but does he have a point?

Using his example, if you are a sports fan, would you pay $5-$10 per year to be able to read the blogs of your favorite sports writer or athlete? Or pick your favorite five personalities in the world... would you pay to read what they have to say?

Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons why I think this model it will only work on a very limited basis:

1) There will always be free alternatives. And if there is plenty of good stuff to read, why pay for additional content if you are already satiated? If it's really good stuff, maybe. But I don't think it will generate a mass market of buyers happy to shell out the bucks. The desire to be heard will guarantee that there will always be good free content. People, especially notable people, are more likely to be motivated by sharing their message than making a few bucks.

2) Nobody likes to give over their financial information on the web, and people love things that are free. It's a definite barrier to sales. Why do you think micro payment systems are so difficult to make work, despite the great enthusiasm during the dot com boom? Partly because people don't want to pay for something they believe should be free. But mostly because they don't want to fork over their financial information even if the cost of something is only, say, a penny a year. It's not the penny, it's the principle in people's minds that the web "should be free" and the hassle and risks associated with any kind of payment system. It's a virtual hoop that a lot of people won't jump through.

3) There are alternative revenue systems available. Namely, advertising. If you can offer the content to readers for free, paid for by advertising instead of readers, it's likely to draw a larger and happier audience. Could pay content live alongside the free content until it takes over like cable TV has dominated broadcast stations over the air? Maybe, but I don't think it will get there in general. At least not until there is a universal payment system that everyone is comfortable with. At that point, I hope pay content on the web will not dominate, even for blogs.

As always, time will tell. For now, I don't think I'm ready to pay for blog content. Can I imagine content I'd be willing to pay for? Yeah. Would I actually pay for it? I honestly don't know because this is such a vague scenario right now. I'd have to answer with the consultant's favorite phrase - "It depends!" So despite my three points against, at the end of the day I have to admit that Joe Wikert brings up a really valid scenario for consideration.

07-17-2006, 10:11 PM	#1
Bob Russell Recovering Gadget Addict Posts: 5,381 Karma: 676161 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Device: iPad	Would you pay money to read blogs? That's the question that publisher Joe Wikert is asking - "Would you pay money to read blogs?" While he realizes that the obvious answer is "Of course not!", he points out that there might be circumstances that it would be worth a few dollars a year to get some content that you really want to read. Now, as a publisher, I'm sure he tends to find paying for content more palatable than the general public, but does he have a point? Using his example, if you are a sports fan, would you pay $5-$10 per year to be able to read the blogs of your favorite sports writer or athlete? Or pick your favorite five personalities in the world... would you pay to read what they have to say? Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons why I think this model it will only work on a very limited basis: 1) There will always be free alternatives. And if there is plenty of good stuff to read, why pay for additional content if you are already satiated? If it's really good stuff, maybe. But I don't think it will generate a mass market of buyers happy to shell out the bucks. The desire to be heard will guarantee that there will always be good free content. People, especially notable people, are more likely to be motivated by sharing their message than making a few bucks. 2) Nobody likes to give over their financial information on the web, and people love things that are free. It's a definite barrier to sales. Why do you think micro payment systems are so difficult to make work, despite the great enthusiasm during the dot com boom? Partly because people don't want to pay for something they believe should be free. But mostly because they don't want to fork over their financial information even if the cost of something is only, say, a penny a year. It's not the penny, it's the principle in people's minds that the web "should be free" and the hassle and risks associated with any kind of payment system. It's a virtual hoop that a lot of people won't jump through. 3) There are alternative revenue systems available. Namely, advertising. If you can offer the content to readers for free, paid for by advertising instead of readers, it's likely to draw a larger and happier audience. Could pay content live alongside the free content until it takes over like cable TV has dominated broadcast stations over the air? Maybe, but I don't think it will get there in general. At least not until there is a universal payment system that everyone is comfortable with. At that point, I hope pay content on the web will not dominate, even for blogs. As always, time will tell. For now, I don't think I'm ready to pay for blog content. Can I imagine content I'd be willing to pay for? Yeah. Would I actually pay for it? I honestly don't know because this is such a vague scenario right now. I'd have to answer with the consultant's favorite phrase - "It depends!" So despite my three points against, at the end of the day I have to admit that Joe Wikert brings up a really valid scenario for consideration.