Paying for Online Content (Magazine writer Question??)

[Nate the great]

I don't think this new model would work for celebrity interviews, but it might work if you found a different niche. Business & Tech, for example. I would pay for interviews of people at e-reader tech companies or digital publishing if they were interesting.

BTW, before you start the site, I have a couple questions you might want to ask yourself. Do you have the business acumen you'll need to run it? Do you have the drive you'll need to start it? (I'm just trying to be helpful.)

[cancelx]

thanks nate

yeah is the answer.

owned and operated my own paper gazette, and been doing the biz internationally for about 13 years or so.

used to design webs too

which is why i thought the more immediate nature of blogging would be perfect.... though there has to be that income factor, and i hate the idea of putting up ads, especially non-specific things like adsense etc...

i might post up a bunch of my previous interviews and columns, use some unprinted stuff, audio etc... and try out a couple ideas, see how many people use Donate, and also try out an ad beside the article with a request for support.

perhaps tie a couple big interviews and exclusive materials into Click to view.

that way im not working on anything new, just plugging in old or overseas material.

anyway, we'll see what happens.

got a hobby blog to register, which will probably come first.

thanks all.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by cancelx

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.)
.

Assuming you have the rights to market them yourself, that is precisely the sort of thing that people would be prepared to pay for, either for a small amount per interview or for a larger amount for digests of logically grouped interviews. If you had an interview with Mark Astronaut I would pay for that, other people will have other "celebrities" that they would say the same about.

I think the key would be small niche markets rather than something with mass market appeal that is likely to be already available in several places for free. Though again, some sort of download-to-keep "product" would be more likely to work than just access to a website. It makes it a bit more tangible.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by cancelx

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

How one writes it may be a reflection on the writer's intellect. But that's not what I was saying, and you know it. There is a certain category of material which is normally considered "intellectual" -- art, literature, etc. -- and a certain category which is not -- interviews with people famous for being famous, for example. In general -- not in specifics, but in general -- people in MobileRead usually demonstrate a preference for the former. This is probably because the people who are eager to find out about the latest Hollywood news spend more of their time on websites that feature that news rather than hanging around here.

Would you go to a celebrity fan site and ask the people there whether they thought you could make a go of selling access to a blog of reviews of classic literature and maybe some living author interviews? How about going to a Mac support site and asking if they thought there was a market for your Windows tech blog? Sure, there's some overlap between any of those categories, but what you're proposing requires a very precisely targeted market, and most bibliophiles aren't a whole lot better market for celebrity interviews than Mac users are for Windows tips.

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

Not anywhere except inside your head.

I try to be helpful by pointing out that your target market may not be this one, and you come back by deliberately mis-writing my name, twisting everything I say so you can mock it, and slinging general-purpose rudeness? Perhaps you've mistaken MobileRead for /b/?

And don't worry, you won't be accused of self-promoting your intellect.

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

And, by implication, the rest of us don't?

We have everyone here from students to executives, writers to publishers. Implying that you are the only person here who is actually making a living -- and by extension that we're all full of rot -- is not a good way to get a friendly conversation going.

[cancelx]

Oh buddy, get off it.
--can we get a moderator in here already...

Folks in here are generally a good crew, if they didn't feel the interview market interested them, they actually simply said, I can't take the poll, but good luck etc... Most, even though not their cup of tea, tried to offer some creative thoughts "if" they were going to bother putting their intellect to paper (or keyboard in this case) - which is what I expected.... The idea being, this is a group of people that seems to value the idea of paying for electronic reading material, so I figured some would make the stretch ad offer some constructive thoughts.

You could take the poll or not, make a friendly comment, or not.

Sorry you didn't choose that route.

I suppose some will find any occasion to act an offense.

I'm sorry my post gave occasion for insult.

Feel free to reply, or not, whatever. I'll let the thread continue on as it was intended and not waste further time on one spurious post.

Good day

Thanks again

[cancelx]

Mr. Ploppy.

Thanks. Yes, that is the sense I got from reading the New York Times article and poll also.

I appreciate your replies, even not being your usual content of choice (grin.) I've done some different chats with authors, musicians too, but it's the actress that tends to make a lot of covers 8)

[GA Russell]

At present, I can't think of any online blog I would pay to read, regardless of subject.

[cancelx]

GA -- would you support via Donate, or knowingly click an adsense button if you read the associated article?

It would take a lot for me to pay too, honestly, but if I was researching someone, and the article was unique enough, I might.

--my only worry is using the Click an Ad, or even Donate appears amateurish, moreso then the debate over using a free blog or your own domain name.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

At present, I can't think of any online blog I would pay to read, regardless of subject.

I can, but it's a very specialized one: I'd pay for A List Apart, because a) it's directly relevant to what I do for a living, and b) it has content, and a specific slant on that content, that I can't readily and conveniently find elsewhere, at least not neatly bundled up in one place. But that's one very rare exception.

Most blogs have two fundamental problems selling content:

One is a matter of perception. Many people think, rightly or wrongly, that the content of blogs is superficial if not outright trash. The fact that for every good, useful, valuable blog there are a hundred filled with ramblings from the dogmatic, dimwitted, or downright deranged doesn't help that image, nor do all the linkspam blogs and the "Los Angeles mother finds secret to white teeth" bogus blogs and their ilk. Just the term "blog" alone impresses on the average reader's mind that the content is a) free, and b) crap.

The other is time-based. By their very nature, blogs tend to be focused on the present and the immediate past. That's to be expected in a format whose design goal is, after all, quick and easy updates. While there certainly are exceptions, and excellent ones, I would say that the majority, possibly the overwhelming majority, focus on current events. For example, most science blogs feature new discoveries, or at the very least new angles on old discoveries, not textbook material. This makes older content seem less valuable to readers: it's "old news". Whether or not it is valuable or not doesn't enter into it much. As always, marketing is about perception. People have been trained to expect blog content to be both current and ephemeral, and that's a massive obstacle to overcome when trying to get them to shell out their cash for old content, no matter how good it is.

Which is why I think this fellow's idea is not going to fly. A conventional website offering celebrity interviews as paid content? Maybe. The porn industry has done fairly well with the public/private site system. But a blog? It seems to me it has numerous disadvantages, ranging from buyer perception to site organization, and no possible advantage, save perhaps for ease of setup. If ease of setup is the guiding factor in designing one's business model, that doesn't speak well of the commitment needed to make a success of it.

[cancelx]

WorldWalker-

Thanks. This I can agree with, mostly.

I said nothing in the initial post of the differences in perception between a Blogsite or a Website. This "is" a huge factor as well.

I had considered "blog" simply for the superficial reason you mentioned, not solely, but because the image is Fast, short and quick content. As you said, for good or not, that was a consideration.

The goal is to get out of print format to control one's own work and thus be able to offer more "content" in a conversation, rather than just hitting a few keywords for that issue.

And, true, what entertainment material can be considered "new" for very long. So, a Blog is required over a Web, as "old" news is archived and "new" material is uploaded daily.

Then there is that "blog" image... is it just that, fodder or focused content?

Thank you for the thoughts,

James

[Patricia]

Please would members review the posting guidelines (on the blue bar at the bottom of this page); particularly the guidelines about discussing things politely and avoiding personal comments.

Patricia
(Moderator)

[GA Russell]

cancelx, I suspect (without seeing any data to back this up) that websites that are successful with paywalls are those that charge companies rather than individuals. For example, I bet that a high percentage of the Wall Street Journal subscribers are not paying for that out of their own pocket.

And of course the companies would see the website as relevant to doing business, perhaps like people in Hollywood would view Variety.

My comment was merely about myself. I am unaware of any website that I would pay for out of my own pocket.