Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value

from the it-doesn't dept

Mathew Ingram points us to a ridiculous quote by MediaNews CEO, Dean Singleton, who also happens to be the Chairman of the Associated Press, talking up his decision to make one of his papers start charging for online news, claiming that charging magically imparts value:

"When you give it away for free it has no value. When you begin charging for it it has some value."

That's wrong on both counts, and you would think that a major American media CEO would understand the difference between price and value. It's a bit scary that he seems to think that putting a price on something automatically gives it value. Unfortunately, he may have to learn that lesson the hard way. I could say that the blank pad on my desk has a price of $10,000. But that's meaningless, because no one would value it that high. The price you put on something is entirely independent of the value that buyers have for it. If the price you put on it is lower than the value they get from it, then they may decide to buy. But that value isn't created by the price.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

You Can't Raise The Price For News If You Don't Actually Add Value

from the let's-try-this-again dept

It's no secret that plenty of folks tend to confuse price and value, falsely thinking that if price = $0 then it means that the value is also 0. That's not true at all, as we've discussed multiple times. But, there's a flip side to that discussion that many in the news business seem to be struggling with as well: they believe that if they raise the price of their product, then by that very same equation, they've somehow increased the value, and people will suddenly pay for the news. Except... that's obviously a fallacy. Just because you raise the price on something it doesn't mean that people will suddenly pay.

Yet, Stephen Brill's new operation is based on this very premise. The fine folks at NPR's Planet Money spoke to Brill about his new venture, but what was frustrating was that they didn't directly challenge a number of his highly questionable assertions. They did bring on someone afterwards who disagreed with Brill, but it could have been a lot more powerful. For example, Brill claims that readers have always paid for a share of the news -- while the truth is subscribers usually barely (if at all) covered the costs of printing/delivering the physical paper, but not for the reporting itself. Brill claims that the decision by newspapers to go online was "group suicide," but neglects to note that almost everyone (with a very few exceptions) who tried to charge online -- including Brill himself -- found that people just didn't want to pay. It wasn't "group suicide," it was economic survival to recognize that charging wasn't working. He also claims that giving away content for free online is why newspapers are in trouble, which is shown as wrong later in the program, when it's pointed out that most newspapers are still profitable -- but the real problem was how much debt the papers took out. It's not about getting readers to pay, it's about how screwed up management has been.

Brill also seems to totally misunderstand iTunes, saying that it works because it's simple and cheap, so his Journalism Online project will be that way too. He leaves out the key point of why iTunes worked: the iPod. People wanted to fill up their iPods and iTunes made that easy. But in the case of news, there are already lots of other options that are easier and more efficient.

Yet, at the same time, folks like Alan Mutter (who will be on the "news" panel at The Free Summit), are suggesting that newspapers should raise their prices. But, again, this seems to be mistaking price for value, assuming that if you just raise the price, people are more than willing to pay.

Instead, the opposite seems to be true. Mark Potts recently pointed out how the online price of the Wall Street Journal (usually held up as the example of online news people will pay for) has gone up so much that he's reconsidered subscribing. Every time they raise the price, it just becomes an increasingly questionable expense, for no added value.

In contrast, however, Potts points to the Cedar Rapids Gazette in Iowa, who unlike most of these other papers, actually does seem focused on actually providing more value, not just talking about how everyone should value the paper, or nostalgically reminiscing about the "good old days" before there was competition. Instead, the paper has absolutely everyone talking and thinking about ways to really become the central hub for everyone in their community. They recognize that they can't rest on their laurels and be the voice of the community because there's no one else. Instead, they know they need to work at it, embrace new technologies, and actually strive to provide a better solution than what else is out there. That's a paper that's focused on value first, rather than complaining about price. Who knows if it will work, but it's a much better strategy than just focusing on price, like so many others.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Open Source Text Book Company Flat World Knowledge Gets Funded

from the disruption-on-the-way dept

We wrote about Flat World Knowledge, the open source textbook provider earlier this year, in noting how the textbook market was ripe for disruption. It's great to find out that the company has now received $8 million in funding -- which seems to go against a rash of recent stories from publications about how companies building business models with a big "free" or "open source" component would have trouble raising money these days. FWK, of course, is using free properly -- as a part of a larger business model where scarcities are charged for, but infinite goods are given away freely. Who knows if it will succeed, but it's nice to see the vote of confidence from investors.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Coming Disruption In The Textbook Market

from the innovators-dilemma dept

Textbook pricing is always a controversial subject among college students and professors -- many of whom feel that the prices of the books are artificially inflated. Textbook publishers faced their first "shock" when internet booksellers came along, and they suddenly had less of a monopoly on the supply of books. But even that didn't decrease the price all that much. Over the past few years, a number of textbook publishers have been freaking out over the "threat" of "piracy." But rather than recognizing that they needed to improve their product to compete, they basically just looked for ways to make people pay even more. So, it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the market is ripe for disruption.

We've already seen some innovative business models enter the space, such as Flat World Knowledge and its free online textbooks with tiered pricing for additional products -- and it looks like various state education agencies are actively interested in moving away from the old model of super expensive textbooks. Reader MikeZ points us to an article detailing how a bunch of states have been making it easier for teachers to look at switching to online educational materials rather than textbooks, recognizing both that textbooks are often too expensive and not nearly as useful as some other resources. States that had budget line items for textbooks only are quickly redefining things so that money can be spent on other educational resources.

This certainly doesn't mean the end of the traditional textbook, but if the existing publishers follow the footsteps of other industries in trying to resist this disruption rather than adapt to it, expect plenty of angry stories about the evils of internet "piracy," with little recognition that piracy isn't the problem at all.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

WSJ Editor Claims Google Devalues Everything

from the no-wonder-no-one-uses-it dept

This has been clueless newspaper guy month around here, and it's kept up with the appearance of Walter Isaacson (yet again), Mort Zuckerman (owner/publisher of both the NY Daily News and US News & World Reports) and Robert Thomson (managing editor of The Wall Street Journal) on the Charlie Rose program, where they spend plenty of time whining about the way things used to be and why people have to start paying -- but never touch on any reason why people should want to pay. Still... that's a dead horse at this point. Instead, I wanted to focus on the rather stunning claim from Thomson concerning Google:

But one of the -- Google -- I mean, the harsh way of just defining it, Google devalues everything it touches. Google is great for Google, but it's terrible for content providers, because it divides that content quantitatively rather than qualitatively. And if you are going to get people to pay for content, you have to encourage them to make qualitative decisions about that content.

This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Google doesn't devalue things it touches. It increases their value by making them easier to find and access. Google increases your audience as a content creator, which is the most important asset you have. It takes a special kind of cluelessness to claim that something that increases your biggest asset "devalues" your business. Thomson's mistake seems to be that he's confusing "price" and "value" which is a bit scary for the managing editor of a business publication. Yes, the widespread availability of news may push down the price (that's just supply and demand), but it doesn't decrease the value at all. It opens up more opportunities to capture that value.

As a content publisher, I can say, definitively, that Thomson is completely off base if he thinks Google is terrible for content providers. Google has been a huge help to us because it has helped us build our audience and our community -- which is the biggest asset we have. Thomson's mistake seems to be that he thinks the asset of publishers is the content. It's not. It's the community. It's the community. It's the community. Sorry for the repetition, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

He's also wrong if he thinks Google divides content "quantitatively." Google's ranking mechanism is the exact opposite. It works out ways to measure the value of content at a qualitative level -- pushing the best content up. If the WSJ is afraid to compete with other content providers, you can understand why they'd be afraid -- but if they truly believe they have good content, that content will rise to the top (of course, the WSJ is harmed by its practice of making that content harder to read).

Finally, he's very wrong that the key to getting people to pay is to have them "make qualitative decisions about that content." If they've reached that stage, they're not paying. The value of the web and Google is that it lets people look at many sources and compare and contrast them qualitatively. Putting up a paywall is what devalues the content. It makes it harder to access and makes it a lot less useful. People today want to share the news and spread the news and discuss the news with others. As a publisher, your biggest distributors should be your community. And what does the WSJ want to do? Stop the community from promoting them. I can't think of anything that devalues their content more.

In that one paragraph, Thomson seems to be wrong on every single point. Is there a way to short the Wall Street Journal? It's really stunning that these newspaper guys (Isaacson goes on to agree with Thomson) can be handed the greatest mechanism for building their audience and adding value to their sites, and they whine about how it devalues them. It's the horse carriage company owners complaining about how automobiles destroy the value of a beautiful horse drawn carriage. Guys: you're looking in the wrong direction. Turn around and look forward at all that opportunity.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Ceiling For Mobile Voice and Text Falling Towards $50 Per Month

from the not-quite-free-yet dept

The cost of basic fixed-line voice telephony is quickly falling towards zero. Plenty of companies offer free voice calls (with various hoops to jump through), and the cost of VoIP service continues to drop. This is trickling over to mobile voice service, too, as three of the top four US operators now offer unlimited voice and text plans for about $100 per month. But even that price ceiling is under pressure: Cricket and MetroPCS, two smaller operators that focus on the low end of the market (and don't offer the footprint of bigger operators), have been offering unlimited plans for under $50 per month, and today, Sprint's Boost Mobile brand joined them. It's unlikely that the major operators will enthusiastically fall into line, but in the current economic environment, it's hard to imagine these cheaper unlimited offerings won't pull some customers away and put pressure on the bigger operators' prices. The bigger operators still have a number of competitive advantages, including bigger coverage areas and a wider choice of handsets, but they may find those appeal to fewer consumers if the price gap remains.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Understanding The Difference Between Price And Value; Product And Benefit

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Earlier this year, in response to yet another editorial somewhere where someone insisted that if something has a price of zero, it means that people don't think it has any value, we pointed out that price and value are two different things. Price isn't determined by value -- it's determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Value plays into that, by determining what the demand part is. That is, if I value widget X at $10, then I'd be willing to pay anything less than $10 for it. If the intersection of supply and demand prices widget X at $5, it doesn't mean that I value it at $5, but it does make it likely that I'll buy it. The same is true if the market prices it at $0. It doesn't mean I place a $0 value on it. It just means it's worth getting at that price, since it's below what I value it at.

In the past few months, this discussion keeps coming up again and again -- and it's good to see folks pushing back and pointing out the difference between price and value. The latest is Amy Gahran, over at eMedia Tidbits, where she takes a journalism professor to task for asking whether journalism should even be done at all if people don't "find value in what we as journalists do." First, Gahran makes the point that, historically journalism has always been more supported by ads than people anyway, and then makes the price/value distinction:

just because people aren't willing to directly pay cash for something does not necessarily mean they don't "find value" in it. For instance, when was the last time you personally chipped in for a clinical trial? And how are you paying for that air you're breathing right now?

Some benefits are assumed to be part of the environment in which we exist. That's what it means to have an environment. If a benefit grows scarce to the point that people feel they must directly pay cash from their pocket to keep getting it, there's probably a far more dire calamity at hand than that single point of scarcity. Most people will almost always seek other free sources of a benefit first.

She then goes on to make another favorite point: too often, those in dying industries mistake the product they're selling with the benefit they're selling. The horse carriage makers mistakenly thought they were in the horse carriage business (product) rather than the transportation market (benefit). The best way to succeed is not to focus on the product, but the benefit you're providing your customers:

I think it's important to bear in mind that people value benefits, not necessarily forms. The key benefit that journalists and news organizations have provided has been relevant, timely, accurate information that helps people make decisions, take action, and form opinions. For over a century we've established an ad-supported business model around packaging that benefit in a form known as "journalism." But that's not the only form this benefit can take, and many parts of the "American public" (and the advertising industry) are figuring that out.

Good stuff.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Just Because Content Is Free Doesn't Mean It's Worthless

from the let's-try-this-again dept

A few folks have asked me to comment on a recent post by Jonathan Handel, an entertainment industry lawyer, bemoaning the idea that content has become "worthless." If this sounds familiar, it's because he's merely the latest in a long line of folks to confuse price and value. That's unfortunate, too, because the piece starts off really solidly, with an extremely accurate understanding of the basic economics impacting the content industry. He notes, as we have time and time again here, the reason that price is getting driven to zero. His mistake, though, is equating price with value. He gets really close to recognizing this in his fifth point, where he notes that: "Computers, web services, and consumer electronic devices are more valuable when more content is available." In other words, that content does have value, it's just not reflected in the price (due to the infinite supply).

What's really unfortunate, though, is he then comes to exactly the wrong conclusion out of all of this. Rather than recognizing that the fact that content increases the value of so many other things opens up a ton of new business models, he goes off and makes a bunch of statements that simply aren't true about what's happening in the content industry. First, he claims that there's now less money to be made today in content creation. That's simply untrue. There's a lot more money being made in content creation than ever before -- but it's much more dispersed. It's no longer all being made by a few big content companies. Then he says (and this is almost laughable): "Another effect is that the market for professional content is becoming more concentrated and less diverse." That's simply not true at all. The number of people producing content for money is larger than at any time in history.

The problem seems to be that Handel only considers content made by big content companies as legitimate professional content. This isn't just elitist, it's wrong. What these new models have done is created legitimate ways for totally new forms of professional (and, yes, it is professional) content creation. Professional content is coming from many sources these days, and while that may be a threat to the old infrastructure -- it's not a threat to professional content, which has actually become less concentrated and significantly more diverse. Anyone who thinks there's less diverse content available these days isn't looking very hard.

Finally, he claims, oddly, that "audiences are shifting more of their spending to hit properties" which pretty much goes against everything that most of us are seeing online with "the long tail" and such things. Since Handel seems to only define media as big media and assumes that all content that is free is "worthless" it's no surprise that he'd ignore it in his calculation. But, the simple fact is that he's wrong about what's happening. Content may be becoming free, but that's opening up tremendous value (which drives more content creations) and that content is coming from a much longer tail of diverse and varied content producers. It may be troublesome for the big entertainment infrastructure he's used to dealing with, but it's hardly bad for the real content industry.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..