Paying for Online Content (Magazine writer Question??)

cancelx · 04-24-2010, 12:23 PM

Hello all-

Hope it's as sunny everywhere else as it is here on the east coast !

I also hope this is the best place to post this Question (almost a poll).

To the Point: I've been a magazine writer for over a decade, primarily Celebrity Interviews.

Tired of the politics of some and the bottleneck info printed by many, I've decided I would like to start my own Blogspace.

THIS IS A BIG CAREER DECISION and I'm hoping the forum might be up for some thoughts?

It would not be a full magazine deal, but rather, each installment would promote one thing. Example... AVATAR Movie... if that was just coming out there would be Feature Interviews with some cast & crew, Trailors, official photos, info etc... Scattered about would be links to purchase previous movies with the same actors, added blogs they may be part of, twitter contacts etc.....

It would be presented in a more immediate fashion, photos could be personal candids the actors did, etc...

Furthermore, if time allowed, I'd have a POLL to see who people wanted to hear from, AND open comments up for you to post questions you'd want asked.

So smaller than a magazine coverage, but more personal, more real, more immediate and interactive.

MY QUESTION: Online magazines are mostly Free. Usually limited content but still free.

If I do this, I still need to have income...so....

WOULD PEOPLE BE WILLING TO PAY A SMALL AMOUNT TO VIEW THE FEATURED INTERVIEWS ON SUCH A SITE?

EXAMPLE? using Avatar... if there was a Feature interview with Zoe Salanda included in the content, as well as a voice file of some interview, etc... BUT there was a Paypal Button Beside a TEASER of the Interview -- it would cost say 50Cents to Download the interview...

...would people see the merit of it?

I know people pay $1 for music downloads, some pay for ringtones, we are now paying for ebooks and small eguides...

Companies are going to start charging for "Access" to online TV/vids etc...

But.....PERCEPTION-wise,

has the time changed enough that FAST, CONSUMABLE CONTENT ACCESS such as paying 50Cents for a Feature on a Regular Entertainment Blog is considered good game?

I considered just posting adsense ads beside the interview and "hope people would click it in support, but that level of trust is risky, as is using a Donate Button.

It's a big jump, just don't know if the support would be there for it, yet?

Thoughts?

PMs, Comments, YES / NO Poll type Answers... ALL IS WELCOME

Thank you for taking the time to read.

Kindest,

James

ps- if you think other groups etc might comment also, please link them to here.

mr ploppy · 04-24-2010, 01:14 PM

If there was enough free content to sample, they might pay a small amount for a downloadable version for the ipad/iphone, or ebook reader, etc. Nobody will pay for access to website content when there is so much similar content available for free.

cancelx · 04-24-2010, 01:17 PM

Thanks PLoppy-

This IS the problem. But I wonder if there is a ground-level change (or one coming) in the same way people would never pay to listen to music online. There are legal free music spots online, but still they download (not pirate).

Perhaps though, written work is not considered as "On The Fly" as music in that it travels with them a lot... I hadn't considered that one.....

delphidb96 · 04-24-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cancelx

Hello all-

Hope it's as sunny everywhere else as it is here on the east coast !

I also hope this is the best place to post this Question (almost a poll).

To the Point: I've been a magazine writer for over a decade, primarily Celebrity Interviews.

Tired of the politics of some and the bottleneck info printed by many, I've decided I would like to start my own Blogspace.

THIS IS A BIG CAREER DECISION and I'm hoping the forum might be up for some thoughts?

It would not be a full magazine deal, but rather, each installment would promote one thing. Example... AVATAR Movie... if that was just coming out there would be Feature Interviews with some cast & crew, Trailors, official photos, info etc... Scattered about would be links to purchase previous movies with the same actors, added blogs they may be part of, twitter contacts etc.....

It would be presented in a more immediate fashion, photos could be personal candids the actors did, etc...

Furthermore, if time allowed, I'd have a POLL to see who people wanted to hear from, AND open comments up for you to post questions you'd want asked.

So smaller than a magazine coverage, but more personal, more real, more immediate and interactive.

MY QUESTION: Online magazines are mostly Free. Usually limited content but still free.

If I do this, I still need to have income...so....

WOULD PEOPLE BE WILLING TO PAY A SMALL AMOUNT TO VIEW THE FEATURED INTERVIEWS ON SUCH A SITE?

EXAMPLE? using Avatar... if there was a Feature interview with Zoe Salanda included in the content, as well as a voice file of some interview, etc... BUT there was a Paypal Button Beside a TEASER of the Interview -- it would cost say 50Cents to Download the interview...

...would people see the merit of it?

I know people pay $1 for music downloads, some pay for ringtones, we are now paying for ebooks and small eguides...

Companies are going to start charging for "Access" to online TV/vids etc...

But.....PERCEPTION-wise,

has the time changed enough that FAST, CONSUMABLE CONTENT ACCESS such as paying 50Cents for a Feature on a Regular Entertainment Blog is considered good game?

I considered just posting adsense ads beside the interview and "hope people would click it in support, but that level of trust is risky, as is using a Donate Button.

It's a big jump, just don't know if the support would be there for it, yet?

Thoughts?

PMs, Comments, YES / NO Poll type Answers... ALL IS WELCOME

Thank you for taking the time to read.

Kindest,

James

ps- if you think other groups etc might comment also, please link them to here.

I'm sorry, but I cannot participate in your survey. Why, you ask? Because you've limited the possible answers. For example, I *might* pay $0.01 for an interview of Rod Blagojevich, and $0.25 for an interview of Ellen Degeneres, but I'd probably want you to pay *ME* $5.00 so that I would be forced to read an interview of Oprah - or even $100.00 if I had to wade/suffer through one of Barak Obama.

Derek

pilotbob · 04-24-2010, 02:13 PM

I think a trend has been widely established on line for pay vs free sites. I'm not sure why so many are questioning it.

The bottom line (to me) is that if the site will have a very large audience and not have exclusive information or service then an ad supported web site is the way to go. People will not pay for what they can get elsewhere for free. Although some free blogs even though pretty targeted topics get so much traffic/readers that they make a good living from their ad word income.

For exclusive information that interests a smaller target market and really provides value can work very well as a pay-as-you-go site.

For example, I pay to get access to the full HD videos produced on screencastsonline.com because it is high quality and not found elsewhere. However, if gmail started charging I would probably go elsewhere.

There is also a hybrid option where the majority of pretty public info is freely available and ad supported but subscribing brings you exclusive features. This can also work.

To answer your poll... the answer is it really depends.

BOb

cancelx · 04-24-2010, 02:16 PM

Hahaha... ok, I agree with the last couple lines there Derek (grin)

I did try to edit the poll to ask if people would (honestly) click an ad or two beside the interview, or use Donate instead. Just, my feeling is if not locked into it, the impulse would be to read and walk anyway for free.

Ah, maybe I'll just have to stick 100% with print and play that game.

Asking myself the same question, I'd probably not hit the donate button, I would click an ad or two (a second and no cost to me), and I'd probably click 50Cents for an interview I really wanted to see if it was a more open interview, had candid stuff etc...

But the pull of quickly clicking from a number of free sites is strong (until you are a writer who got screwed from said place...)

Maybe it's too soon, I mean, shortly enough the big guns are going t be charging access fees because everything has been moving online. That is, it's no longer a "complimentary" service where old interviews are posted, but rather, it is taking the place of print and regular TV.

jb

cancelx · 04-24-2010, 02:20 PM

@pilotbob
good answer. i considered subscription, but hadn't thought about making subscribers have access to materials not found on the public blog. that's a great idea too, though it would require higher fees because it's a broad access to all extra interviews over a period of time, and there again is the pay issue... if someone hesitates on 50cents, it's unlikely a couple bucks will enter their purview of choices.

pilotbob · 04-24-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cancelx

@pilotbob
good answer. i considered subscription, but hadn't thought about making subscribers have access to materials not found on the public blog. that's a great idea too, though it would require higher fees because it's a broad access to all extra interviews over a period of time, and there again is the pay issue... if someone hesitates on 50cents, it's unlikely a couple bucks will enter their purview of choices.

The bug that runs screencasts online has a pretty good way to solve this... since as you say, new subscribers get access to all the back shows. So, as time goes on he has raised the price to become a new subscriber. The renewal price stays constant as long as you keep your subscription in good standing.

Anyway... just some ideas. I wish you great luck with your self-publishing endeavor.

BOb

Worldwalker · 04-25-2010, 03:42 AM

How much would I have to pay to not have to read celebrity interviews?

Now, if you could run a service that would scrub all celebrity-related content out of anything I'm reading, that I would pay for.

This is probably not the best place for that question. All in all, the MobileRead crowd tends more toward the intellectual end of the audience spectrum, and while I'm sure some of us care about what Kate Gosselin is doing, the majority of us will respond with a resounding "meh".

Also, er, keep an eye on that capitalization.

cancelx · 04-25-2010, 11:16 AM

I didn't know intellect was merely gauged by the content one reads, or writes for that matter.

Man... really? is this the kind of crowd that this guy suggests...self-promoting one's intellect?

I think I am in the wrong forum then after all.

sorry to tarnish the sensibilities of the forum (grin)

--oh well, back to making a living....

TGS · 04-25-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

All in all, the MobileRead crowd tends more toward the intellectual end of the audience spectrum,

You're having a laugh, right?

cancelx · 04-25-2010, 11:33 AM

@TGS... it's all good. I've had my tea & toast... putting my skin back on now.

I must get back to lowering my IQ a few points and putting a buck or two in my pocket (grin).

Lemurion · 04-25-2010, 03:47 PM

The key to charging is unique content: as has been said before, no one is going to pay for something they can get elsewhere for free.

I wouldn't pay for celebrity interviews, but I didn't vote in the poll because I'm very much not your target audience. I might pay for something I'm interested in, but the problem I have with a micro payment is that it's usually just too much trouble to bother with.

Personally I'm more likely to pay for a download than simple access - but interviews aren't well-suited to that model. I think subscriptions are your best bet, but rather than raising the price later (which can lead to pricing yourself out of the market) you might want to consider selling two or three year subscriptions at first, and dialing them back to one year as you get more content.

delphidb96 · 04-25-2010, 04:37 PM

If you write an article on Madonna's (or Beyonce or the Jonas Brothers for that matter) latest 'moment', you're dealing with something that will appeal to a much wider audience than say, 'the effect of cell tower radio waves on the San Fernando Valley Mud Flipper'. So charging $0.02 per reader on the former will probably net as much income as charging $2,000.00 per reader for the latter. The wider the distribution/broader the market, the better the chance of gaining income with small fees.

Derek

cancelx · 04-25-2010, 04:56 PM

Yes, I agree. I don't believe the market has changed enough yet that downloading a single article is considered Consumable Content in the same way Music downloads are, or even newspaper feeds.

I read elsewhere that about 80% of people would pay for a newspaper, or even pay for sections of the paper. But again, it is still not considered the same.

Celebrity, whether of the fluff variety as (errr) WorldWalker points out, or simply interesting and/or charity-focused, celebrity has become Free content online.

It really sucks, to use my big words. If a person, such as myself, wanted to provide personal and interactive interviews with folks people "do" enjoy watching or listening too, rather than the usual (and almost scripted to fit magazine monthly content focuses), there's little to no support.

Starting out online, I don't think subscription is good for me, though it IS a great idea if it was an established project, or if my decade of past interviews would be sellable (but I reckon people would hate paying for previously pubbed more than new and only pennies to click.)

Oh well.... it was a thought.

View Poll Results: Would you Pay 50Cents to Download a Celebrity Interview from a Blog Magazine?
Yes I would Donate 50Cents for Immediate Celebrity Interviews	2	8.00%
No - it must always be Free, unless I buy a Magazine	22	88.00%
I would pay more for a Feature (up to $1) & support Personal, Instant Content	1	4.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

04-24-2010, 12:23 PM	#1
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	Paying for Online Content (Magazine writer Question??) Hello all- Hope it's as sunny everywhere else as it is here on the east coast ! I also hope this is the best place to post this Question (almost a poll). To the Point: I've been a magazine writer for over a decade, primarily Celebrity Interviews. Tired of the politics of some and the bottleneck info printed by many, I've decided I would like to start my own Blogspace. THIS IS A BIG CAREER DECISION and I'm hoping the forum might be up for some thoughts? It would not be a full magazine deal, but rather, each installment would promote one thing. Example... AVATAR Movie... if that was just coming out there would be Feature Interviews with some cast & crew, Trailors, official photos, info etc... Scattered about would be links to purchase previous movies with the same actors, added blogs they may be part of, twitter contacts etc..... It would be presented in a more immediate fashion, photos could be personal candids the actors did, etc... Furthermore, if time allowed, I'd have a POLL to see who people wanted to hear from, AND open comments up for you to post questions you'd want asked. So smaller than a magazine coverage, but more personal, more real, more immediate and interactive. MY QUESTION: Online magazines are mostly Free. Usually limited content but still free. If I do this, I still need to have income...so.... WOULD PEOPLE BE WILLING TO PAY A SMALL AMOUNT TO VIEW THE FEATURED INTERVIEWS ON SUCH A SITE? EXAMPLE? using Avatar... if there was a Feature interview with Zoe Salanda included in the content, as well as a voice file of some interview, etc... BUT there was a Paypal Button Beside a TEASER of the Interview -- it would cost say 50Cents to Download the interview... ...would people see the merit of it? I know people pay $1 for music downloads, some pay for ringtones, we are now paying for ebooks and small eguides... Companies are going to start charging for "Access" to online TV/vids etc... But.....PERCEPTION-wise, has the time changed enough that FAST, CONSUMABLE CONTENT ACCESS such as paying 50Cents for a Feature on a Regular Entertainment Blog is considered good game? I considered just posting adsense ads beside the interview and "hope people would click it in support, but that level of trust is risky, as is using a Donate Button. It's a big jump, just don't know if the support would be there for it, yet? Thoughts? PMs, Comments, YES / NO Poll type Answers... ALL IS WELCOME Thank you for taking the time to read. Kindest, James ps- if you think other groups etc might comment also, please link them to here.

04-25-2010, 11:16 AM	#10
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	I didn't know intellect was merely gauged by the content one reads, or writes for that matter. Man... really? is this the kind of crowd that this guy suggests...self-promoting one's intellect? I think I am in the wrong forum then after all. sorry to tarnish the sensibilities of the forum (grin) --oh well, back to making a living.... Last edited by cancelx; 04-25-2010 at 11:43 AM.

04-25-2010, 04:37 PM	#14
delphidb96 Wizard Posts: 2,999 Karma: 300001 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Citrus Heights, California Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V	One thing to consider about what to charge for online content. If you write an article on Madonna's (or Beyonce or the Jonas Brothers for that matter) latest 'moment', you're dealing with something that will appeal to a much wider audience than say, 'the effect of cell tower radio waves on the San Fernando Valley Mud Flipper'. So charging $0.02 per reader on the former will probably net as much income as charging $2,000.00 per reader for the latter. The wider the distribution/broader the market, the better the chance of gaining income with small fees. Derek

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Make magazine, digital edition is online only.	Hellmark	News	11	01-04-2010 02:55 PM
A writer with an artwork question	Steven Lake	Writers' Corner	41	12-17-2009 07:14 PM
Magazine and Newspaper content for PRS-600	mfusion	Sony Reader	0	09-07-2009 11:06 AM
Helix: Free online speculative fiction magazine	Bob Russell	Reading Recommendations	1	06-23-2006 11:08 AM
PDA 24/7 Weekly Online Magazine	Bob Russell	Lounge	0	05-05-2005 03:06 AM

04-24-2010, 01:14 PM	#2
mr ploppy Feral Underclass Posts: 3,622 Karma: 26821535 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Yorkshire, tha noz Device: 2nd hand paperback	If there was enough free content to sample, they might pay a small amount for a downloadable version for the ipad/iphone, or ebook reader, etc. Nobody will pay for access to website content when there is so much similar content available for free.

04-24-2010, 01:17 PM	#3
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	Thanks PLoppy- This IS the problem. But I wonder if there is a ground-level change (or one coming) in the same way people would never pay to listen to music online. There are legal free music spots online, but still they download (not pirate). Perhaps though, written work is not considered as "On The Fly" as music in that it travels with them a lot... I hadn't considered that one.....

04-24-2010, 02:13 PM	#5
pilotbob Grand Sorcerer Posts: 19,832 Karma: 11844413 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tampa, FL USA Device: Kindle Touch	I think a trend has been widely established on line for pay vs free sites. I'm not sure why so many are questioning it. The bottom line (to me) is that if the site will have a very large audience and not have exclusive information or service then an ad supported web site is the way to go. People will not pay for what they can get elsewhere for free. Although some free blogs even though pretty targeted topics get so much traffic/readers that they make a good living from their ad word income. For exclusive information that interests a smaller target market and really provides value can work very well as a pay-as-you-go site. For example, I pay to get access to the full HD videos produced on screencastsonline.com because it is high quality and not found elsewhere. However, if gmail started charging I would probably go elsewhere. There is also a hybrid option where the majority of pretty public info is freely available and ad supported but subscribing brings you exclusive features. This can also work. To answer your poll... the answer is it really depends. BOb

04-24-2010, 02:16 PM	#6
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	Hahaha... ok, I agree with the last couple lines there Derek (grin) I did try to edit the poll to ask if people would (honestly) click an ad or two beside the interview, or use Donate instead. Just, my feeling is if not locked into it, the impulse would be to read and walk anyway for free. Ah, maybe I'll just have to stick 100% with print and play that game. Asking myself the same question, I'd probably not hit the donate button, I would click an ad or two (a second and no cost to me), and I'd probably click 50Cents for an interview I really wanted to see if it was a more open interview, had candid stuff etc... But the pull of quickly clicking from a number of free sites is strong (until you are a writer who got screwed from said place...) Maybe it's too soon, I mean, shortly enough the big guns are going t be charging access fees because everything has been moving online. That is, it's no longer a "complimentary" service where old interviews are posted, but rather, it is taking the place of print and regular TV. jb

04-24-2010, 02:20 PM	#7
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	@pilotbob good answer. i considered subscription, but hadn't thought about making subscribers have access to materials not found on the public blog. that's a great idea too, though it would require higher fees because it's a broad access to all extra interviews over a period of time, and there again is the pay issue... if someone hesitates on 50cents, it's unlikely a couple bucks will enter their purview of choices.

04-25-2010, 03:42 AM	#9
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	How much would I have to pay to not have to read celebrity interviews? Now, if you could run a service that would scrub all celebrity-related content out of anything I'm reading, that I would pay for. This is probably not the best place for that question. All in all, the MobileRead crowd tends more toward the intellectual end of the audience spectrum, and while I'm sure some of us care about what Kate Gosselin is doing, the majority of us will respond with a resounding "meh". Also, er, keep an eye on that capitalization.

04-25-2010, 11:33 AM	#12
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	@TGS... it's all good. I've had my tea & toast... putting my skin back on now. I must get back to lowering my IQ a few points and putting a buck or two in my pocket (grin).

04-25-2010, 03:47 PM	#13
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	The key to charging is unique content: as has been said before, no one is going to pay for something they can get elsewhere for free. I wouldn't pay for celebrity interviews, but I didn't vote in the poll because I'm very much not your target audience. I might pay for something I'm interested in, but the problem I have with a micro payment is that it's usually just too much trouble to bother with. Personally I'm more likely to pay for a download than simple access - but interviews aren't well-suited to that model. I think subscriptions are your best bet, but rather than raising the price later (which can lead to pricing yourself out of the market) you might want to consider selling two or three year subscriptions at first, and dialing them back to one year as you get more content.

04-25-2010, 04:56 PM	#15
cancelx Nervous Groupie Posts: 154 Karma: 22 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Device: Pocket Pro	Yes, I agree. I don't believe the market has changed enough yet that downloading a single article is considered Consumable Content in the same way Music downloads are, or even newspaper feeds. I read elsewhere that about 80% of people would pay for a newspaper, or even pay for sections of the paper. But again, it is still not considered the same. Celebrity, whether of the fluff variety as (errr) WorldWalker points out, or simply interesting and/or charity-focused, celebrity has become Free content online. It really sucks, to use my big words. If a person, such as myself, wanted to provide personal and interactive interviews with folks people "do" enjoy watching or listening too, rather than the usual (and almost scripted to fit magazine monthly content focuses), there's little to no support. Starting out online, I don't think subscription is good for me, though it IS a great idea if it was an established project, or if my decade of past interviews would be sellable (but I reckon people would hate paying for previously pubbed more than new and only pennies to click.) Oh well.... it was a thought.