Re: Will They Pay? (was Salon.com and taller ads)

From: Michael Martinez <Michael_at_xenite.org>
Date: Fri 25 May 2001 10:02:42 -0500

MICHAEL MARTINEZ <Michael_at_xenite.org> WROTE:

---[long snipped excerpt placed below ==========]---
>It's a shame my admonishment moved into a context never
>intended for it. The reality, as I have pointed out
>previously, and I have provided links to online reports
>about this, is that at most only 10% of people are
>willing to pay for ANY content at all, and that the
>largest segment are only willing to pay for pornography.

TO WHICH JOHN GASKILL <jg_at_info-central-usa.com> REPLIED:

>A writer's intent can only be derived from what is
>written, after all, we can not read your mind.
>
>Based on what you wrote, my response and that of
>Rob Frankel were appropriate. Here's why:
>
>1.) Your primary statement was an overly broad
> generalization which was self defeating.

You're being ridiculous. As I pointed out in private
email, there was no contradiction in what I wrote on the
list. You have erroneously assumed I said that no one pays
for information and then turned around and claimed to have
paid the New York Times for it. I did not. Online
registration with the Times is free, and under no
circumstances would I pay them or anyone else for their
content. It's simply not necessary.

It may be convenient to manufacture the illusion that I
have somehow contradicted myself, but I have not. I have
repeatedly stated, and shown throuh citation of news
articles reporting on research into this field, that
people (in general -- you are forcing me to qualify
everything needlessly) are unwilling to pay for content.

To argue or imply that the majority of people are willing
to pay for content when they clearly are not, and when the
dot-com meltdown has proven conclusively that online
content is not a self-sustaining business asset (for the
vast majority of would-be providers), is a gross waste of
the time of people subscribing to this list.

Either you simply don't understand the complexities of the
marketplace, and the realities of the Internet, or you are
blinding yourself with misplaced optimism.

90% of all Web surfers DO NOT PAY FOR CONTENT.

NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN to enlarge that
percentage.

Of the 10 percent who DO pay for content, most are paying
for pornography.

Preaching the profitibility of content-for-pay, or the
feasibility of content-for-pay, simply undermines your
credibility.

If 1 site can do it, great. But until you show that more
than 1 site can do it, it's not a practical choice for the
vast majority of commercial Web site operators. The money
is not there and making broad generalizations such as "people
will pay for compelling content" only shows you don't have
any answers.

Let's cut to the chase. If you think there is compelling
content out there, point me to it. I'm just like 90 percent
of the surfing marketplace. I don't pay for content. If you
can find something that compells me to pay, you'll have shown
you have a point. You're just waving your hands right now,
saying, "Michael, you're wrong", and making obscure
references to unnamed sites you say are raking in the big
bucks.

Sweeping generalizations and smoke-and-mirrors mean nothing
to me. If you have access to some fats on the issue, now
is the time to share them. With clear references. Either
you can show who is paying for the compelling content or you
can't. There are over 20,000 people subscribed to this list.
Can they all seriously expect Rob Frankel's few thousand
subscribers to support THEIR compelling content?

Michael Martinez
 Science Fiction and Fantasy info_at_xenite.org
  Visualizing Middle-earth, a book for all Tolkien fans
   http://www.xenite.org/



Received on Fri May 25 2001 - 10:02:42 CDT