<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;scarcities&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:00:38 PDT</pubDate>
<title>High Tech Cows &#038; Open Source Farm Equipment: Yes, The Economics Of Farming Is Relevant</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/04562818170/high-tech-cows-open-source-farm-equipment-yes-economics-farming-is-relevant.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/04562818170/high-tech-cows-open-source-farm-equipment-yes-economics-farming-is-relevant.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I frequently get asked why I spend so much time talking about the entertainment industry here on Techdirt, and one of the points I make is that I think what's happened to the entertainment industry over the last decade and a half is really a leading indicator of the type of disruptive change that has already started to impact, or will soon be impacting, nearly every industry imaginable.  As such, by understanding what's happening and how <i>not</i> to respond, perhaps we can help lots of other industries move more smoothly into the future.  So I'm always interested and intrigued by parallels in totally unexpected industries.  Just recently, the good folks over at NPR's <i>Planet Money</i> put together a fascinating episode about <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/12/148218265/meet-claudia-the-high-tech-cow" target="_blank">modern farm economics</a> (and host Adam Davidson also wrote a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/magazine/dairy-farming-economy-adam-davidson.html?_r=2&#038;ref=magazine" target="_blank">NY Times piece</a> on the same subject).  While it mainly focuses on Claudia, the high-tech cow, it also has some key economic points that will likely sound <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939/grand-unified-theory-economics-free.shtml">familiar</a> to regular readers (unfortunately, these key economic points are only in the audio version of the podcast, and were left out of the transcript).  Near the beginning, host Adam Davidson lays out his "four clear lessons about how to have a shot at thriving in the current global economy."
<ol><i>
<li>Stay on top of technological change.
</li><li>Focus. Specialize on the things you can do best.
</li><li>Find some way to buffer yourself against unexpected changes that are definitely coming.
</li><li><b>Find something that you can sell that your customers are willing to pay a premium for because you've given them something they want which no one else can give them.</b>
</li></i></ol>
All of those sound familiar to one degree or another, but clearly number one and number four are ones that we hit on frequently.  They then use the example of Fulper Farms to show how it can work.  They talk about the technological change and innovation not just in process, but in the breeding of better cows, which leads to the "bleeding edge high tech cow."  They then talk about specialization, where the Fulper's don't do everything that a farmer used to do, but instead focus on raising and milking cows, and rely on other experts to handle the breeding of cows (to get those high tech cows) and even cow nutrition (letting this other person stay up on the latest in cow nutrition science).
<br /><br />
To some extent, it's like the differences we've talked about between <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01281116105/no-internet-doesnt-do-away-with-middlemen-it-just-changes-their-role.shtml">gatekeepers and enablers</a>.  The gatekeepers wanted to be at the center of things and control all aspects of production, distribution, etc.  But in a world of enablers there's much more specialization.  So, for example, in the music world, musicians can pick and choose from best-of-breed solutions to help create, distribute, promote and monetize their work, rather than just relying on a single provider.  
<br /><br />
Not much time is spent on the third point, but there's a brief discussion about financial tools to help buffer the swings in the market -- things like grain futures and such, which are really just forms of insurance to protect in a volatile market.  I'm a little less interested in this particular point.  I think it can be important in some industries but is less of a key point long term.
<br /><br />
But the fourth point was what I found the most interesting, and obviously fits most closely with some of the theories and business models I've espoused for years: sell something scarce which people want to buy.  But, in a commoditized world such as farming, how is that even possible?  Well, we hear the same thing in the music world all the time, where people insist that there's nothing to sell <i>but</i> the music, but then we see lots of folks get creative and do <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011/future-music-business-models-those-who-are-already-there.shtml">amazingly creative things</a>.  And the same thing is clearly happening on the Fulper Farm as well  -- thanks in part to the youngest generation, who attended my own alma mater (Go Big Red!), and is applying some of what she learned about being more entrepreneurial back to the farm.
<br /><br />
She's trying out a few things to take some special facets of what the farm has available, for which they can charge a premium:
<blockquote><i>
Breanna realized they kept talking about this "problem" they had.  They're really close to New York City.  Land is really expensive in Northern New Jersey.  There's not an agricultural world there, so they have to travel really far to buy ag equipment.  There's all these problems being so close to New York City.  And she realized, by using her farm as a case study in college, that being so close to the City might be the best way to make money.  It might be their secret to being a successful farm.  I looked and I couldn't find any farm closer to New York City.  I think this is the closest one to Brooklyn... And people in Brooklyn are kind of obsessed with farming....
<br /><br />
Breanna has figured out that there's money in that.  She's working with a cheese maker who's going to help them make a premium Fulper-branded cheese.  You and I, some time soon, can go to our local shop and buy really, really local... this is "the closest cheese to Brooklyn."... 
<br /><br />
Breanna had this other idea.  Did you know that you could send your two daughters for a week to summer camp at Fulper Farms?.... Families pay a few hundred bucks, their kids have an awesome week experiencing agriculture.... You know what's amazing?  A few weeks of summer camp that Breanna did as a college project?  Brings in almost as much money as a whole year of milking cows.
</i></blockquote>
Hello alternative revenue streams.  I'm sure the purists will insist that just like a musician should only sell music, a dairy farmer should only sell dairy products.  But a <i>smart</i> business person finds ways to capitalize on real scarcities, and that's exactly what Breanna appears to have done with the Fulper Farms.
<br /><br />
The report concludes with another key point that we've definitely seen in the music business as well.  Davidson notes that there's a lot more opportunity, and the <i>average</i> farm is now <i>making more money</i> than in the past, but it's a lot more volatile, and lots of the old guard simply don't make the transition well.  Once again, this sounds mighty familiar.
<br /><br />
It's kind of neat to see the parallels between such different industries when it comes down to the basic economics of progress and technological change.
<br /><br />
Along those lines, perhaps there are even more parallels moving into the future.  As I was working on this post, Leigh passed along a TED talk from about a year ago by Marcin Jakubowski, who is <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marcin_jakubowski.html" target="_blank">taking the concepts of the maker culture and the open source ethos</a> and applying it to farming.  It seems like an appropriate thing to end this post with, so check it out:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/04562818170/high-tech-cows-open-source-farm-equipment-yes-economics-farming-is-relevant.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/04562818170/high-tech-cows-open-source-farm-equipment-yes-economics-farming-is-relevant.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/04562818170/high-tech-cows-open-source-farm-equipment-yes-economics-farming-is-relevant.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>innovation-impacts-lots-of-industries</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120320/04562818170</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:52:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A whole bunch of you have been sending in the recent NY Times article that details how singer Cee Lo Green is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/business/media/cee-lo-green-strikes-pop-star-gold-without-a-gold-album.html?_r=1&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">making $20 million this year</a>, even as the sales of his album have been considered just so-so, based on traditional industry metrics.  The article is <i>really</i> much more about Primary Wave Music, a music publisher/management firm that seems to totally get the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">economics</a> of the music business today -- that by selling the <i>scarce</i> they can make a hell of a lot more money than just by selling music. 
<br /><br />
We've actually talked about Primary Wave's work in the past, in some of the things they've done to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091115/1833556944.shtml">help Mariah Carey</a> make money.  And the story with Cee Lo is pretty similar: focus on selling the things you <i>can't pirate</i>, the real scarcities.  And we're not talking (as our critics always insist) about <i>tangible</i> goods like t-shirts, but selling <i>the person</i>.  Primary Wave may be positioned as publishing and management, but it's real business is <i>marketing</i>.
<blockquote><i>
When Primary Wave took over Cee Lo&rsquo;s management, shortly before the release of &ldquo;The Lady Killer,&rdquo; he still had a relatively low profile as a solo artist. But the company seized on the early viral success of &ldquo;Forget You&rdquo; to make Cee Lo a ubiquitous face.
<br /><br />
His over-the-top performances at half a dozen award shows -- performing with the Jim Henson Company puppets at the Grammys, playing a piano that spun 360 degrees above the crowd at the Billboard awards -- proved highly successful. His television campaign for the year has also included &ldquo;Saturday Night Live,&rdquo; an appearance on the NBC comedy-drama &ldquo;Parenthood&rdquo; and his own talk show on the cable channel Fuse (&ldquo;Talking to Strangers&rdquo;).
<br /><br />
Primary Wave also booked numerous commercial endorsements for Cee Lo, in traditional TV spots like a 7Up commercial that has been running since October, as well as a Web video series for Absolut Vodka and personal appearances for Duracell and Pretzel M&#038;M&rsquo;s.
</i></blockquote>
And, no, this doesn't just mean complete selling out (I can already hear the critics...), but finding campaigns that match Cee Lo's personality.  They note they've turned down a ton of deals that didn't fit.
<br /><br />
Either way, it looks like Cee Lo is earning a ton of money from all of this: commercials, sponsorships, TV appearances and (of course) tons of live performances.  The article notes that actual direct music sales are the smallest slice of the pie.
<br /><br />
But the key point here is that these and many other opportunities are much more wide open to artists today, and it helps if their music is more widely known.  That is, artists like Cee Lo, with the help of companies like Primal Wave, are recognizing that if you use the infinite goods -- such as the music -- to make the scarce goods (like Cee Lo himself or his endorsement) much more valuable, you can make a lot more money than ever before.  And when you look at the overall market that way, you realize that there's lots more money to be made in the <i>music industry</i> today than ever before.  The only part of the industry that's <i>hurting</i> is the part that was based on selling plastic discs, which has become obsolete.  Everything else is booming.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-it's-done</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111227/03144517198</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 01:25:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Does It Make Sense To Autograph Ebooks?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02042814313/does-it-make-sense-to-autograph-ebooks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02042814313/does-it-make-sense-to-autograph-ebooks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the things we've seen that has been used, quite frequently, by content creators in offering "premium" packages, is getting something physical "signed" by the content creator -- a CD case, a book, etc.  In fact, we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=500">made use of this ourselves</a>, and sold a bunch of signed books.  However, in a world where so much goes purely digital, is there still a way to do a signature?  And if you can, is it still valuable?  It seems that some are starting to experiment with the idea.  Famed best-selling author Robert Kiyosaki (of <i>Rich Dad, Poor Dad</i> fame) is trying out a new offering in which he'll <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/05/rich-dad-author-to-release-autographed-ebook-edition-of-unfair-advantage.html" target="_blank">digitally autograph some ebooks</a>.  Basically, readers who get this ebook will get an extra digital page inserted in their copies, which will have his signature.  And each signature is unique -- he can even add personalized messages.
<br /><br />
There are some limitations.  It's only available on one day and only via a live online chat.  Also, it only works on the Kindle, which raises questions concerning just how "future proof" it will really be.
<br /><br />
I'm certainly intrigued by the idea, but I can't see it really catching on to quite the same level.  I would bet, for many, that it doesn't seem nearly as "real" or "authentic" to make it valuable.  Perhaps I'm wrong and some will find it really compelling.  I guess we'll see.
<br /><br />
What I find <i>much more interesting</i> is the overall technology behind this.  While we all knew it was coming, we're finally starting to see the technology put into place that can create customized and interactive books, rather than limiting them solely to the static word (not that there's anything wrong with that in many cases, but I like to look at what new and innovative ideas can come out of these things).  If you can personalize content in an ebook, it seems that builds up a range of possibilities.  Perhaps, rather than a signature, some people wouldn't mind an eBook that comes with a personalized message of the day, or via which the author can respond to questions.  On top of that, it suggests a day when it will be more common to create more customized books, and even allowing for updating books that continue to evolve.  We're really just on the cusp of what the technology will allow, and I don't think doing digital autographs is really the key killer app here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02042814313/does-it-make-sense-to-autograph-ebooks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02042814313/does-it-make-sense-to-autograph-ebooks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02042814313/does-it-make-sense-to-autograph-ebooks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>does-it-make-them-special?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110518/02042814313</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:06:23 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If You Can't Understand The Difference Between Money And Content, You Have No Business Commenting On Business Models</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110422/15563714005/if-you-cant-understand-difference-between-money-content-you-have-no-business-commenting-business-models.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110422/15563714005/if-you-cant-understand-difference-between-money-content-you-have-no-business-commenting-business-models.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've been noticing a really silly trend lately, of copyright maximalists trying to "debunk" people who actually understand the economics of content, by trying to sarcastically equate money to content and then saying, "if it's okay to copy content then isn't it okay to copy money?"  It's an argument stemming from pure ignorance, mixed with an unhealthy dose of smugness, and we should try to pop this bubble before it goes much further.  In order to do so, let's take a look at a picture perfect specimen of this sort of argument from (of course), an IP lawyer (who else?) named James Gannon, who wrote <a href="http://jamesgannon.ca/2011/04/15/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-copy/" target="_blank">"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Copy,"</a> all about copying money.  It's getting passed around by various copyright maximalists with comments about how "brilliant" it is.
<br><br>
It's brilliant only if you don't understand all of the following: money, economics, copyright, business and value.  If you understand <i>any</i> of those things, you might recognize that the analogy makes no sense.  Misunderstand all of them... well, then I can see how this argument might make sense.  It's also not a very original argument, because we see it all the time and it's been debunked before.  But now that it's rising in popularity, let's dig in a little and see if we can explain how utterly ridiculous the comparison is.
<blockquote><i>
Gutenberg did not invent the printing press so that it would be controlled in the hands a few rich and powerful central bankers who desperately cling to outdated business models. With the advent of digital technologies, everyone can and should be free to copy their own money.
</i></blockquote>
I see what you did there.  Of course, here's the key thing: money and content are two totally separate things.  We write about content frequently, but we also write about money quite a bit, and in fact, have spent an awful lot of time discussing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/02412713972/can-bitcoin-really-succeed-long-term.shtml">what money is</a>, how it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/04005911963/rethinking-money-breaking-up-currencies.shtml">might change</a> and where it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090820/0230575943.shtml">heading</a>. Traditionally and classically, money is defined as three things: a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account.  Content is none of those things.  You can't compare the two, because they're nothing alike.
<br><br>
And here's the key point that the "har har copy money durrr" crowd doesn't seem to comprehend.  <i>Money is a scarcity</i>.  They used to go on and on about how content was the same as a car ("you wouldn't steal a car") but the switch to using "money" as the example is because enough people have so debunked that argument by explaining the differences between scarce goods and abundant goods that they (mostly) don't even try any more.  But by switching to money, they show that they don't understand what they were being taught.  They thought people were only focusing on <i>tangible</i> goods, not <i>scarce</i> goods in explaining the differences.  Tangible goods are scarce, but not all scarcities are tangible goods.  Money is a perfect example of that.
<br><br>
Money is scarce.  It's not scarce because there are a limited number of <i>bills</i>.  In fact, most money isn't in bill form at all, so that's clearly not it.  Money is <i>scarce</i> because of that first characteristic listed above: it's a <b>store of value</b>, and money, by itself, doesn't create any additional value.  The overall value is a scarcity and the money is a representation of that value.  You can print more money, but that creates inflation, because the overall value remains the same.  That's not the case with content.  Contrary to what some claim, getting more content on the market does not take away value.  In a culture where shared culture and shared cultural experiences are highly valued, the fact that you can copy content makes it <i>even more valuable</i>.  It makes it easier to share that cultural experience.
<br><br>
In other words, content can <i>create new value</i>.  Money does not.  Money is a store of value.  Content is not.  Pretending these two things are the same is wrong and will make you look foolish.
<blockquote><i>
Don't get me wrong. I love the bank notes that are created by the Bank of Canada (BoC). In fact, I consider myself to be one of their biggest fans. Even though the BoC will try to stop me if I try to make my own copies of their bills, they should really be flattered.
<br><br>
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I only want to share their work with my friends and family. By allowing me to make copies of their works, my friends might become fans of their currency too. Everyone knows the value of a currency is based on its demand so why not try to get as many fans as possible?
</i></blockquote>
Right, except all of that is simply wrong and shows ignorance of the basic factors of both content and money as described above.  When you copy money, you are actually decreasing the value of money.  That's not true of content.  When you share content with people, you increase the market opportunity for the content providers.  That's not true with money.  Pretending otherwise is either ignorance or propaganda.  
<br><Br>
Gannon's piece goes on from there, continuing to pretend that he's sarcastically making a point.  It's a really pointless argument, and doesn't make him look particularly intelligent.  If he wants to debate actual economics or business models, plenty of us would be happy to do so.  Instead, making arguments like this is just silly and doesn't make his point.  It just makes him look like he has no real argument, and has to resort to pure sophistry.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110422/15563714005/if-you-cant-understand-difference-between-money-content-you-have-no-business-commenting-business-models.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110422/15563714005/if-you-cant-understand-difference-between-money-content-you-have-no-business-commenting-business-models.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110422/15563714005/if-you-cant-understand-difference-between-money-content-you-have-no-business-commenting-business-models.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>please-shut-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110422/15563714005</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Justin Bieber Connects With His Fans Via Shiny Nail Polish</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/02575111382/justin-bieber-connects-with-his-fans-via-shiny-nail-polish.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/02575111382/justin-bieber-connects-with-his-fans-via-shiny-nail-polish.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Around here, we're always on the lookout for cool and interesting ways that musicians can connect with their fans.  But oftentimes, the criticism against experimenting with new business models that don't rely on "selling music" tries to assert that "not everyone can do that!" -- and that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">not every artist can make a living</a> from selling T-shirts or concert tickets.  But those arguments miss the point.  It's obviously true that not every artist can make a living by <i>just</i> selling T-shirts or by playing putt-putt golf with their fans.  The point is that there are an infinite number of ways for artists to sell unique offerings to their fans -- stuff that fans will want to buy because there's a connection to the artist.
<br /><br />
Now, I'm not a Justin Bieber fan, but the news that he's <a href="http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/10/10/justin-bieber-launch-nail-polish-line/">designing his own line of nail polish</a> targeted at teenage girls -- sounds like another example of an artist trying to connect with his fans (and make money by doing so).  Clearly, not just any musician can sell nail polish with heart-shaped glitter suspended in it.  But this nail polish line highlights the fact that musicians can endorse almost any product (no matter how silly) and expect a reasonable business model -- if the endorsement has even a hint of authenticity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/02575111382/justin-bieber-connects-with-his-fans-via-shiny-nail-polish.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/02575111382/justin-bieber-connects-with-his-fans-via-shiny-nail-polish.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/02575111382/justin-bieber-connects-with-his-fans-via-shiny-nail-polish.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>One-Less-Lonely-Girl</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101012/02575111382</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:31:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another Reason To Buy: A Unique CD For Fans That No One Else Will Get</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/01335110647.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/01335110647.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the cool things we've seen in collecting various <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">examples</a> of cool "reasons to buy," that musicians and other content creators use, is the creative diversity we find.  I find it somewhat frustrating when critics in the comments try to reduce the whole "CwF+RtB" concept to ridicule by picking a single example from a single content creator (Josh Freese's mini-golf is a popular one) and assume that we're saying the future business models is that everyone should just do that.  Of course that's not what we're saying.  In fact, part of the point is that we are assuming that these <i>creative</i> content creators will be <i>creative</i> in developing "reasons to buy" as part of their business model that is unique and special to them -- which will resonate quite well with their own fans and community.  In fact, we've referred to this process as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100321/2133288647.shtml">improvisational business modeling</a>.  Just as musicians learn to improvise and try out new things within their music, these days it makes sense to improvise within your business model as well -- and quite frequently we find out about cool, unique ideas that no sideline commentators would ever think of -- but the musicians who are in the thick of it can come up with directly on their own.
<br /><br />
The latest such example is from musician Brian Hazard, who recently recorded his 8th full-length album.  He claims this is his last physical release (in the future, it'll all be digital), he decided to still press the CD after he won a songwriting contest for free CD manufacturing.  With that process underway, he decided to "improvise" a bit on the business model side, and see if any of his fans <a href="http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/the-individual-edition-cd.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">would be interested in an <i>Individual Edition</i> CD</a>.  This isn't a "special edition," but a totally uniquely <i>individual</i> edition, that no one else would get:
<blockquote><i>
As a souvenir of your support, I will create a personalized custom CD featuring unique mixdowns of each of the 12 songs I recorded for the album. The outtakes "Touch" and "Release the Hounds" are not on the standard Limited Edition CD and will not appear on any future physical release. The disc will open with a token of my appreciation -- a spoken "thank you" mentioning you by name.
</i></blockquote>
He figured out that it would take about 3 hours to create each special mixdown -- which is not an insubstantial amount of time, but he figured if anyone was willing to pay $99 for it -- with a limit to only 20 such individual editions being offered, he'd be willing to do it.  Anyone who bought the offering also got the regular Limited Edition version as well.  If no one bought it, no big deal.  In the end, 13 of his biggest fans felt it was worth it -- representing $1,300, more than 50% of the $2,500 he made since releasing the album earlier this month.  It's not earth-shattering money, of course, but it is yet another example of a unique "reason to buy," that clearly worked for this artist.
<br /><br />
Not only that, but Hazard isn't stopping there.  Based on that experience, he's suggesting variations (improvisations) that others might try as well:
<ol>
<li><strong>Deleted scenes</strong>. Remember that guitar solo you cut because it seemed too "self-indulgent"? That redundant 3rd verse? That 45 second fade-out? Your fans might enjoy hearing them in an extended arrangement, if only to compare and contrast with the album version.</li>
<li><strong>Live show for one</strong>. How about a personalized one-off live recording of the album? Make sure to mention the guest of honor by name and leave in the mistakes! If playing through the whole album is too much work, how about dedicating a single song of their choice from your discography?</li>
<li><strong>Unique vocal</strong>. You could use alternate vocal takes, or even change a line of the lyrics to include a fan's name. How about inserting a clever line about how you've "done this 12 times already" and increment the number with each take? Even if you've already finished tracking the band, overdubbing a vocal is relatively quick and painless.</li>
<li><strong>Fan sing-a-long</strong>. Anyone with an iPhone can record themselves singing along to the chorus of your song. It wouldn't be too hard to tune it and layer it with the lead vocal. Who wouldn't want to share the results with everybody on their friends list? Alternately, you could layer takes from any fan who wants to contribute and sell the same "fan sing-a-long" version to everyone. It could even work in a live setting by recording the audience singing along, then handing out download cards telling them where to get the recording.</li>
</ol>
He notes that not all of these are easy, but it's a good list for brainstorming purposes, and to get others thinking about cool ways to improvise as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/01335110647.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/01335110647.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/01335110647.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>neat</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100817/01335110647</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:19:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Porn Company Embracing 'Pirates,' Planning To Monetize Experiences</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/02514410662.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/02514410662.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about an economist who tried to apply the whole <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml">CwF+RtB</a> concept <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100716/01083610238.shtml">to the porn industry</a>.  Apparently, some porn execs have been doing exactly the same thing.  Private Media Group is a publicly traded, multi-million dollar porn company, that has been a leader in porn in Europe for many, many years.  The company just went through a management shakeup, bringing back an old CEO, Berth Milton (the son of the company's founder).  In discussing his initial plans, he said that the internet <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/bizblog/2010/07/21/berth-miltons-plan-to-bring-sexy-back-to-profitability-at-private-media/" target="_blank">"turned into the worst thing that's ever happened to the adult business."</a>  But, if you read between the lines, he isn't saying that it's the <i>internet</i> that's the problem, but that the internet pulled the rug out from old business models.  He immediately followed it up by saying:
<blockquote><i>
But there are also plenty of opportunities. There are ways of making money from non-paying traffic and that's what Private is going to do. I can't reveal anything more about our strategy, but we're going to be more and more free, which will help us recruit paid subscribers.
</i></blockquote>
That was just a few weeks ago... but he's now moving forward with those plans, and is saying that he wants to <i>embrace</i> "pirates," in <a href="http://newteevee.com/2010/08/17/video-private-ceo-says-porn-piracy-is-promotion/" target="_blank">a new interview with NewTeeVee</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"We will be extremely happy the more people are pirating our content and the more they look at it."
</i></blockquote>
Why?  Well, it looks like Milton has come to the same conclusion as many others in terms of content business models: set the infinite goods free, and look for ways to sell the scarce.   He realizes that fighting unauthorized access is a losing battle, noting that he just has to "look at my own kids, because that's the best way to know where the market is going. It doesn't matter if I tell them that it is illegal to download. As soon as they close the door to their room, they download." As NewTeeVee explains:
<blockquote><i>
In short, Private wants to go from making money with porn to monetize actual sexual experiences. It recently teamed up with a San Francisco-based swingers club to shoot a movie, and it wants to turn some of the lessons learned into a business, connecting people involved in alternative sexual lifestyles through exclusive websites. This will first be tested in Europe, where Private is already in negotiations with a swingers community site as well as a hotel property, but Private could eventually import it into the U.S. as well.
<br /><br />
Milton also expressed optimism that advertisers will eventually start to embrace adult traffic, and said Private would offer adult toys and other additional products for sale. Private will make 95 to 99 percent of its revenue in these areas in five years, he predicted, adding that DVDs will be dead by then.
</i></blockquote>
<center>
<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?deepLinkEmbedCode=E1ZGluMTpNx7oKgj0v65kHemMqjzJI0j&#038;embedCode=E1ZGluMTpNx7oKgj0v65kHemMqjzJI0j&#038;width=560&#038;height=314"></script>
</center>
He makes some key points in the interview that really apply to so many other industries as well.  He admits that, in the short term, this is a challenge and that "our easy way of getting revenue will disappear," but in the long term, it's a huge opportunity, because: "there's never been so many people watching adult content."  He points out that the focus is on making money from "things you can't copy."  Unlike execs in so many other content industries, it seems like Milton really recognizes why this is an opportunity, rather than a threat.  It's amazing that so few entertainment industry execs have figured out the same thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/02514410662.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/02514410662.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/02514410662.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>connecting-with-fans</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100818/02514410662</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:49:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/03131810469.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/03131810469.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When we talk about business models for content, one question we get asked a lot is how these business models could possibly apply to authors.  We're always told that such business models might work for music, but couldn't possibly work for authors.  To be honest, I find this sort of response incredibly uncreative.  If you look around, it's actually not hard to find authors who are making use of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0159066032.shtml">new</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/2137115307.shtml">innovative</a> business models, and even publishers who are willing to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100512/0242119390.shtml">embrace</a> that kind of thinking.  This is definitely a good thing, but we're always interested in hearing new and more examples of this happening.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/rosspruden/status/20171219116" target="_blank">Ross Pruden</a> alerts us to an LA Times story about a company called OpenSky that is apparently <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cover-opensky-20100801,0,1640852,full.story" target="_blank">helping authors implement additional business models</a> by helping them find tangible products they can sell in association with their books.  Indeed, the whole concept seems to fit in with our concept of using infinite goods to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">make scarce goods more valuable</a>:
<blockquote><i>
A cookbook author, for example, not only sells books through OpenSky but also hawks a favorite barbecue sauce and grill. The author pockets 50% of the profit, with the rest going to OpenSky and others involved in the transaction.
<br /><br />
[...]
<br /><br />
David Hale Smith, a Texas literary agent, was about the only one who hadn't morphed roles since Naples last saw him. After they sat down at a table near that escalator, Smith immediately handed her a copy of a client's newest novel: "So Cold the River" by Michael Koryta. Smith mentioned that it's set in an old hotel in central Indiana known for its Pluto Water, believed to have healthful effects.
<br /><br />
Naples lit up: "If [Koryta] was on OpenSky, the novel could be tied to a promotion of the hotel. He could have a button on his site for readers to buy the book and the water." (OpenSky would find a supplier to bottle and ship it.) She described other commercial possibilities: a sneak-peak download of a chapter of his next book, a "webinar" with him discussing his stories.
</i></blockquote>
I can already hear the critics complaining about this sort of "crass commercialism" that I'm sure is "destroying" the concept of "art for art's sake," but I find it odd that those who focus on the whole "art for art's sake" argument are the same folks who also complain that the changing marketplace means content creators can't make money any more.  No one is saying anyone <i>has</i> to adopt these models -- just that for those who feel comfortable doing so, it's now easier than ever to embrace infinite concepts -- and use them to make scarce goods more valuable.
<br /><br />
That said, after reading about all of this, I went and looked at <a href="http://shopopensky.com/" target="_blank">OpenSky</a>, and I don't see any of this on their website.  Instead, it looks like a plain old store.  If they're really focused on helping content creators, it seems like they would be a lot better off promoting content creators on their site as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/03131810469.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/03131810469.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/03131810469.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>business-models...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100803/03131810469</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:45:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Roger Ebert Gives People A Reason To Buy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0055538380.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0055538380.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we wrote about Esquire's <a href="http://www.esquire.com/print-this/roger-ebert-0310" target="_blank">incredibly moving profile of Roger Ebert</a> as part of our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/0310368194.shtml">discussion</a> of a segment of that article concerning Disney taking down the video of the tribute show for Gene Siskel that Ebert did right after his longtime sparring partner passed away.  If you liked the Esquire piece, you should also check out Will Leitch's <a href="http://deadspin.com/5482198/my-roger-ebert-story" target="_blank">touching personal story about Roger Ebert</a>, which shows how incredibly nice Ebert had been to Leitch very early on in Leitch's career (and how Leitch screwed it up in a regretfully rebellious moment).
<br><br>
What comes through in both pieces is how utterly <i>nice</i> and <i>decent</i> Ebert seems to be.  After the Leitch piece ran, Ebert <a href="http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/9849648901">tweeted</a> to Leitch that "all is forgiven."  For decades, tons of people have connected with Ebert through his old television show, and through his movie reviews, blogs and columns.  More recently, he's been connecting in a big way <a href="http://twitter.com/ebertchicago" target="_blank">via Twitter</a> as well.
<br><br>
And now he's trying something different.  He's giving his fans a reason to buy.  While we often talk about the whole <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">CwF+RtB</a> business model in the context of replacing traditional models -- such as for music, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0159066032.shtml">books</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/2050255304.shtml">movies</a>, it can clearly work in other areas as well.  Our own curiosity led us to try setting up our own <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php">CwF+RtB offering</a> -- which was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091028/0348476705.shtml">fantastic success</a> (and, yes, we know we need to replenish and offer more -- hold on, it's coming).
<br><br>
So we're always glad to see others jumping on the bandwagon and trying similar ideas as well.  In Ebert's case, it's <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/an-invitation-from-the-ebert-c.html" target="_blank"><i>The Ebert Club</a></i>, which is a yearly subscription that grants you additional access and benefits for a mere $5.  A lot of what you get is available for free, but there are some good scarcities in there -- including private discussion threads and early access to special Ebertfest events including a special meet-and-greet with Ebert himself.
<br><br>
It sounds like they're looking to do more as well, so it will be interesting to see what comes of it.  There aren't any tiers -- it's one price fits all -- though I could see room for a tiered offering down the road as well with additional benefits (private film screenings with just club members?).  But what it's really showing is that this whole concept of connecting with fans and giving them a real (scarce) reason to buy goes beyond what you might expect -- and opens up all sorts of new possibilities elsewhere as well.  And, considering that Leitch's "falling out" with Ebert was over Ebert being the king of "old media," this sort of venture seems very, very new media.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0055538380.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0055538380.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/0055538380.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>after-connecting-with-fans-for-so-long</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100303/0055538380</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:03:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Ten Good Reasons To Buy: The Newspaper Edition</title>
<dc:creator>Marcus Carab</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0354087988.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0354087988.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Recently, Mike posted a concise list of <a target="_blank" href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml">Ten Good Reasons to Buy</a> &ndash; one of two essential elements in the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">Connect with Fans + Reason to Buy strategy</a> that he has been observing and helping to define for some time. These reasons were brainstormed at Midem 2009, so they focus on the music business &ndash; but CwF+RtB has potential in all sorts of industries (Techdirt itself employs it).
<br /><br />
So, with the New York Times <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/media/21times.html?hp&#038;emc=na">going metered</a> and rejecting a proposed <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/0321445656.shtml">membership model</a> that would have been much more <span style="font-style: italic;">CwF+RtB-ish</span>, I thought it might be worth looking at Mike&rsquo;s list from the perspective of newspaper publishing. Though some of the ideas are more suited to musicians, it still qualifies as <span style="font-weight: bold;">Ten Good Reasons to Buy</span>.
<br /><br />
(It should be stated from the outset that I believe advertising will continue to be the primary source of revenue for newspapers, and that I think paywalls and meters are doomed to fail. See my <a target="_blank" href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1939487849.shtml">recent post here on Techdirt</a> and my <a target="_blank" href="http://www.good.is/post/What-should-the-new-business-model-be/">extensive ramblings on good.is</a> for more on why. That being said, if newspapers use CwF+RtB in truly innovative ways, they might just turn the whole industry on its head. Stranger things have happened.)
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;1. Access: Access to the actual content creators is a real scarcity and one that can often be used to make money in ways that make fans quite happy.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
Sometimes newspapers do this backwards. When fundraisers and events and the like seek media sponsors, newspapers will request a hosting spot for one of their writers or editors as a <span style="font-style: italic;">condition</span> for the sponsorship. In other words, the content creators buy access to the fans.
<br /><br />
This isn't always how it goes though &ndash; it depends on the event in question and the profile of the staff. In some cases the newspaper seeks sponsorship for their talent, and throws in event appearances and panel discussions to sweeten the deal. But in all cases, the main purpose of the whole shebang is to sell more subscriptions.
<br /><br />
There might be a lot more opportunities here. Why just panels and events? What about workshops, custom reports and analysis, even one-on-one attention? The thing to remember here is that the fans in question, or at least the most profitable ones, are business fans. Businesspeople read newspapers because the information and expertise has direct and immediate value to them. Connect finance writers with traders, legal writers with law firms, tech writers with software developers &ndash; with some creativity, there could be money to be made.
<br /><br />
I can think of some ideas outside the business sphere too, but I have gone on for too long already and I'm only on Reason #1.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;2. Attention: One of the most important scarcities in the digital age. Attention is incredibly scarce, and if you've got it, you can do a lot with it.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
This one is simple: active, vibrant comment sections where writers, columnists and editors regularly participate. Many newspapers see some of the trash that inevitably turns up in every comment section and go sour on the whole affair, allowing their columnists to shutter their comments when they should be requiring them (and paying them if necessary) to get involved. They will quickly realize that online communities become self-moderating once rational, intelligent debate is established and readers know they have the writers&rsquo; attention.
<br /><br />
So far this isn't a reason to buy &ndash; at least not for the readers themselves. Advertisers are another story. An engaged community of readers is worth a lot more than the impressions they bring to a website &ndash; savvy advertisers will want their ideas, not just their eyes. See Techdirt's <a target="_blank" href="http://techdirt.com/index.php?edition=itinnovation">IT Innovation blog</a> for a prime example of this.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;3. Authenticity: This one also includes &lsquo;trust.&rsquo; The ability to be authentic carries tremendous weight and is quite scarce at times. But if you can provide something that is authentic and valuable, it's often a very strong reason to buy.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
Authenticity is what everyone already touts as the strength of newspapers and the reason that people will consent to pay for their content. But newspapers are far from perfect, and in a world where transparency is becoming as important as trust, their reticence about sources and methods is starting to seem old-fashioned. If newspapers continue to resist the linking culture, and continue to leave out details that could easily be added in appendices and footnotes online where space is unlimited, they risk being left behind. Moreover, if big names leak too much talent to more innovative startups, they could quickly lose authenticity (and surely someone will say they've jumped the shark.)
<br /><br />
So I guess what I&rsquo;m saying is: yes, without authenticity none of these other RtBs matter in the slightest &ndash; <span style="font-style: italic;">so don</span>&rsquo;<span style="font-style: italic;">t go sacrificing it now.</span>
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;4. Exclusivity: Many people value having something that very few (or perhaps no) others have.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
This is essentially what has allowed the WSJ paywall to succeed where so many others have failed. At the business level, and especially in finance, exclusive information has significant value, and the paywall created a certain sense of exclusivity. Ultimately the flimsiness of that exclusivity could be what brings it down &ndash; but what about something truly exclusive? <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newsnow.co.uk/services/">Custom news aggregators</a> for businesses have been showing some success &ndash; what about exclusive news aggregators managed by a team of the newspaper's respected editors? That's just one idea of many.
<br /><br />
Outside the business world this is a tougher nut to crack. Financial news gets more valuable with exclusivity, but most news is the opposite: a big portion of its value comes from sharing it. Nonetheless, there may be certain forms of exclusivity that avid readers will pay for. It will come down to individual newspapers knowing their strengths and their audiences, and seeing ways to offer them something they want. If anyone has any creative ideas, I'd love to hear them.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;5. (New) Creation: The ability to create something new is a scarcity. This often confuses people, because a digital good once created is no longer scarce -- but the ability to create it is still very much a scarcity.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
Most newspapers understand that gathering information and creating content is what they do, so there's not much to say here. Newspapers that are drastically cutting back reporting staff and ramping up the wire content should remember that, while distributed reporting makes a lot of sense in many situations, every publication needs to continue creating something new that has value, or all is lost. 
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">
&ldquo;6. Tangibility: The granddad of scarcities: physical products.</span>&rdquo;
<br /><br />
News on paper is the core physical product at the moment, but that&rsquo;s not going to be around forever. I suspect that some newspapers will transform into news magazines, since the market for glossy, full-colour formats with good photography and long-form journalism will likely outlive the market for cheap newsprint broadsheets. A nice physical product has always been important to magazines, and people are willing to pay for it; newspapers are designed to be as cheap and disposable as possible, which is why the internet renders them obsolete. This shift to a magazine format might actually make sense for some newspapers, if they can establish a role for themselves as what Devin Coldewey calls <a target="_blank" href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/11/29/real-time-real-discussion-real-reporting-choose-two/">the delayed media</a>.
<br /><br />
All that being said, the money from selling the physical product has never carried the weight of newspapers or magazines, and it&rsquo;s certainly not going to start now.
<br /><br />
In terms of other physical products, I don&rsquo;t see any reason why newspapers couldn't sell more merchandise, though I&rsquo;m not sure how to go about it in a way that would bring in significant revenue. Lots of newspapers sell things like photo prints and keepsake copies, but so far it hasn&rsquo;t proven to be that lucrative. On the other hand, those initiatives are often old and mechanical, and some may not have had fresh marketing treatment in years &ndash; who knows what they might be overlooking?
<br /><br />
And if all else fails, the New York Times can just become an authorized Apple retailer.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;7. Time (saving or making): People will pay if you can save them time (or give them extra time in some manner).&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
Time is especially valuable in business. As far as saving time goes, there might be a market for rapid fact-sheets and summarized reports that supplement the newspaper&rsquo;s core editorial. Though difficult to sell by themselves, if combined with some level of exclusivity this could be a great revenue stream: customized reports, similar to the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newsnow.co.uk/services/%20">aggregator model</a> I mentioned earlier. Some business publications do sell reports, but more often than not these are of the <span style="font-style: italic;">annual reference tome</span> variety, a format that today is about as useful as a phone book. If there is money to be made, it will come from more rapid and direct business services.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;8. Convenience: If you make things more convenient, many people will buy, even if free options are available. That's one reason why iTunes has done so well.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
This is what a lot of people in the industry are <a target="_blank" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/28/apple.ipad.publishers.reaction/">banking on</a> with the iPad and other tablets, but if they seriously believe the iTunes store will work for newspapers just like it does for music and movies, they are in for a rude awakening. Apple is selling music to people who are used to paying <span style="font-style: italic;">much more</span> for CDs, and they <span style="font-style: italic;">still</span> face stiff competition <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> had to remove DRM to satisfy their customers. Newspapers have an audience that is accustomed to getting the news for free, sharing it openly on social networks, blogging about it, linking to it and generally enjoying it without restriction. Moreover, while the digital alternatives to iTunes for music and movies are torrents or peer-to-peer programs, the alternatives to iTunes for newspapers will be countless news websites that are equally convenient and which stay free to soak up all the advertising revenue. Very few people, if any, are loyal to a newspaper the way legions of fans are loyal to a favourite recording artist. Convenience is still an important part of delivering the news, but that&rsquo;s because readers already expect it. 
<br /><br />
It should be noted separately that the concept of Convenience also ties in with the custom business services I propose under Time and Exclusivity.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;9. Belonging: Never underestimate just how important a sense of belonging to a group or a tribe is &ndash; and being able to provide that in an authentic manner can be a true scarcity.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
A sense of belonging stems from the attention I discussed earlier. I talked a lot about comment sections, but those aren't the only form of audience engagement: Twitter is an extremely valuable tool, and I've often wondered if good old fashioned <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum">forums</a> might have some potential on news websites. 
<br /><br />
But I think the real goldmine could be participatory journalism: there are a lot of citizens out there who want to get involved in the reporting process, and the concept is gaining steam, with <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/citizennews">YouTube</a> and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ireport.com/">CNN</a> getting on board, among others. So, why aren't there more people out there <span style="font-style: italic;">training</span> citizen journalists? I bet newspapers, especially at the community level, would have an easy time finding groups and clubs that would pay for reporting workshops and seminars. Or they could try something like the PPF Group in the Czech Republic: opening <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/technology/internet/11iht-papers.html">hyperlocal newspaper-caf&eacute;s</a> where editorial staff will interact with the public (and partnering with Google in the process.)
<br /><br />
And yes, I know that's an NYT link. It's ironic on two levels.
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">&ldquo;10. Patronage: Definitely depends on the situation, but there are some people who just want to support an artist, no matter what. And that presents a scarcity.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
Out of curiosity I searched &ldquo;newspaper patronage&rdquo;, and I found this <a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R0IJAAAAIBAJ&#038;sjid=BScDAAAAIBAJ&#038;pg=3663%2C824227">highly amusing editorial</a> in an 1878 edition of a New Brunswick newspaper from the Google News archives (don't you just hate the way Google is destroying our culture?).
<br /><br />
<span style=" position: relative; z-index: 10; float: right; "><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2721/4322191436_d4d5e2d61c.jpg"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2721/4322191436_d4d5e2d61c.jpg" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 15px; margin-right: 0px; border-width:1px;padding:6px;" alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" /></a><div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-top: -10px; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: center;"></div></span><div class="paragraph" style=" text-align: left; display: block; "><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; color: rgb(68, 68, 68);">&ldquo;Many long and weary years have forced the conviction upon us that newspaper patronage is a word of many definitions, and that a great majority of mankind are either ignorant of the correct definition, or are dishonest in a strict Biblical sense of the word. Newspaper patronage is composed of as many colors as the rainbow, and is as changeable as a chameleon.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
Several comic caricatures of different types of newspaper patrons follow, and then:
<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; color: rgb(68, 68, 68);">&ldquo;Now isn't newspaper patronage a curious thing? And in that great day when the gentleman in black gets his dues, as he surely will, how many of the patrons enumerated above will fall to his share? Now it will be seen that while certain kinds of patronage are the very life and existence of a newspaper, there are other kinds of patronage that are more destructive than deadly night shade.&rdquo;</span>
<br /><br />
I suspect the same will prove true today.</div><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0354087988.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0354087988.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0354087988.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100201/0354087988</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:22:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>Ten Good Reasons To Buy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So I already put up my post about all the Connect with Fans + Reason to Buy (<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml" target="_blank">CwF+RtB</a>) stories from last year, which kicked off with my <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">presentation at Midem 2009</a> all about Trent Reznor and his business model experiments.  This year, we wanted to do something a bit different at Midem and get a lot more interactive.  So, we set up a brainstorming workshop to see if we could build these sorts of business models for some artists.  I did a (very) short presentation to kick off the session (no video, sorry) and then we broke up the audience into groups where we could pick specific artists and (quickly) run through the process of setting up a business model.  I wanted to share a basic writeup of what I presented, and sometime later I will try to do a writeup on some of what the groups discussed.
<br /><br />
I was going under the assumption that, by now, most people understand the basics of how to "connect with fans" (though, we keep hearing stories suggesting that many still struggle with this a lot) and wanted to focus in the presentation on understanding the "reasons to buy."  One of the problems is that many people assume that "value" alone is enough to get people to buy -- but as we've discussed multiple times there's a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080819/0314402026.shtml">difference</a> between value and price -- and assuming that value alone is enough to get people to buy isn't going to cut it -- especially if the product is abundantly available.
<br /><br />
So the key is to find scarcities -- as we've said many times.  But, not just any scarcities.  Those scarcities must also be valuable.  Value plus scarcity is the real reason to buy.  And, the intersection may be different for each kind of content creator.  In fact, it <i>should</i> be different for each content creator, because it is essential to recognize how to express the key value that a particular creator brings to the table.  To help explain that, we discussed 10 key scarcities that are helpful to think through in creating reasons to buy.  The list is not complete, but is a good starting point.
<ol>
<li><b>Access</b>: Access to the actual content creators is a real scarcity and one that can often be used to make money in ways that make fans quite happy.  In fact, a study released at Midem <a href="http://midemnetblog.typepad.com/midemnet_blog/2010/01/ex.html" target="_blank">claimed</a> that, in a recent survey, 19% of respondents claimed they would pay <i>anything</i> to meet their favorite star.  Now, obviously, that's a bit of hyperbole, but it does suggest a high degree of demand for access from top fans.
</li><li><b>Attention</b>: One of the most important scarcities in the digital age.  Attention is incredibly scarce, and if you've got it, you can do a lot with it.
</li><li><b>Authenticity</b>: This one also includes "trust."  The ability to be authentic carries tremendous weight and is quite scarce at times.  But if you can provide something that is authentic and valuable, it's often a very strong reason to buy.
</li><li><b>Exclusivity</b>: Many people value having something that very few (or perhaps no) others have.
</li><li><b>(New) Creation</b>: The ability to create something new is a scarcity.  This often confuses people, because a digital good <i>once created</i> is no longer scarce -- but the ability to create it is still very much a scarcity.
</li><li><b>Tangibility</b>: The granddad of scarcities: physical products.  Sometimes when we discuss scarcities people seem to think that we're only talking about tangible products.  Nothing is further from the truth, as we often think that other non-tangible scarcities represent much larger opportunities, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the value of tangible products.
</li><li><b>Time (saving or making)</b>: People will pay if you can save them time (or give them extra time in some manner). 
</li><li><b>Convenience</b>: If you make things more convenient, many people will buy, even if free options are available.  That's one reason why iTunes has done so well.  Apple has made the whole process super convenient.  It's also one of the top reasons why people say they buy bottled water -- even if they know the water quality is no different than tap water.  They just find it more convenient.
</li><li><b>Belonging</b>: Never underestimate just how important a sense of belonging to a group or a tribe is -- and being able to provide that in an authentic manner can be a true scarcity.
</li><li><b>Patronage</b>: Definitely depends on the situation, but there are some people who just <i>want</i> to support an artist, no matter what.  And that presents a scarcity.
</li></ol>
So, we've got the list, but then what do you do with it.  In my presentation, I looked quickly at a few artists (most of whom we've discussed before, so don't be surprised that you know their stories) and listed out what scarcities they appeared to use -- and made sure to include artists of all types: small to big.  Among those we discussed were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090220/1040373845.shtml">Josh Freese's</a> hilarious tiers, as well as <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080115/095022.shtml">Jill Sobule's</a> tiered offerings, noting that they involved a combination of access (hanging out with the artist, private concerts, phone calls, etc.), authenticity (in both cases, the lists were very much reflective of the individuals' personalities), exclusivity (many were limited), new creation (both involved the ability for the artists to write songs for the buyer), tangibility (offering tangible goods like CDs, t-shirts, and Josh's Volvo), belonging and patronage (big fans of both wanted a chance to support the artists they love).
<br /><br />
We then looked at <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090820/2217015948.shtml">Moldover</a> and <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090728/1242475688.shtml">Motoboy</a> who each have offered really cool physical goods (Moldover's CD case that doubles as a virtual theremin and Moto Boy's wonderful music box).  I showed off each of these products, highlighting how they clearly played up the tangibility scarcity as a reason to buy (as well as things like authenticity, exclusivity, belonging and patronage) to make this work.
<br /><br />
As a final less well known artist, we looked at <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0121566726.shtml">Matthew Ebel</a>, whose experiments with giving fans a subscription service that provides new music and additional opportunities for access are working quite well.  In that case, he's obviously using access, authenticity and exclusivity along with belonging and patronage.
<br /><br />
Of course, this isn't just a model for small or up-and-coming artists.  It can work quite well for big name artist, as well -- and on that front we discussed both Pearl Jam and <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091115/1833556944.shtml">Mariah Carey</a>. As you may recall, Carey and her team put together a whole issue of <i>Elle</i> magazine, all about Carey, where Carey's team was allowed to sell the ads and keep the money.  Some of the ads were for Carey-branded products, such as perfume.  In this case, with a star this big, that particular aspect of the model is not about access (which is regularly used by smaller artists), but about belonging and tangibility (the magazine is tangible, as is the makeup that Carey was selling).  But perhaps an even bigger point is that Carey was really selling her biggest fans' <i>attention</i> in selling advertising directed at them.  As for Pearl Jam, they have their "Ten Club," which gives fans earlier access to the best tickets at shows (convenience, time saving, belonging, exclusivity) along with special physical goods, such as a special vinyl single, a magazine and other members' only contests and giveaways (tangibility, exclusivity).
<br /><br />
Of course, there's a lot more that goes into building good "reasons to buy," but using these ten scarcities as a starting point is an excellent way to start a brainstorming process - as we did ourselves at the conference.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>scarcity-plus-value</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100125/1631147893</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:31:02 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How 'Free' Economics Are Going To Impact The Video Game Market</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0418555648.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0418555648.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Ben points us to a well done article over at GameIndustry.biz warning the industry <a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/the-free-trade_7" target="_new">to start understanding how "free" plays a role in digital economics</a>.  It does a great job summarizing the key points associated with "free" infinite goods, such as the fact that it really has little to do with "piracy," though the "piracy" may be an early indicator of where the market is heading:
<blockquote><i>
The notion of Free isn't new in economics, of course. It's well understood that as a commodity becomes less rare, its value tends towards zero. When something becomes sufficiently commonplace, you can no longer charge a notable price for it - unless you artificially create a market based around image and prestige (bottled water) or find a way to add value (pure oxygen canisters, flavoured water).
<br /><br />
You can also create artificial scarcity to keep prices high, although there are obvious moral problems with doing that with anything other than luxury items - and markets, like networks, interpret this kind of interference as damage, and usually find a route around it. 
</i></blockquote>
The whole thing is worth reading, and does a good job laying out the issues.  It doesn't, however, suggest much of a solution -- though, there are plenty of potential solutions for the video gaming industry, focusing on finding scarcities to provide that can't be had for free.  So, for example, giving away the core game for free, but charging to play multiplayer versions on an authorized server.  As many are finding, that can be quite a nice business.  Unfortunately, it does seem like some think the answer is to sell virtual goods within a game, but that has the potential to face the same eventual issue (the goods are really infinite, and will face the same deflationary economic pressure).  But the fact is there are always additional scarcities created, which will present opportunities. 
<br /><br />
 Figuring out just how to break out those scarcities from the infinite goods was the point of that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070301/005837.shtml">economic series</a> I wrote up a few years ago, which we're now offering nicely packaged as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=400" target="_new">the <i>Approaching Infinity</i> book</a> (as a part of our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php" target="_new">CwF+RtB experiment</a>) -- which actually helps demonstrate the point.  You can read most of the basic content for free online in the series, or you can buy the physical (scarce) book in a nice readable package which has been updated and expanded with more material and edited to better flow as a book (and you get a t-shirt as well).  You can always take infinite goods and find a scarcity... whether it's with blog posts or with video games.  So, yes, free is important to understand, but equally as important is understanding how to use it to your advantage, rather than just worrying about how it may hurt your old business model.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0418555648.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0418555648.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0418555648.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-coming...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090724/0418555648</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 13:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Artists Recognizing The New Business Model: Sell The Scarcity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1939174937.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1939174937.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://laughingsquid.com/eminem-topspin-brian-eno-the-future-of-the-music-industry/?awesm=EBc&#038;utm_campaign=iancr&#038;utm_content=bookmarklet-twitter&#038;utm_medium=awe.sm-twitter&#038;utm_source=direct-awe.sm" target="_new">Laughing Squid</a>, in talking about how Eminem is the latest artist to embrace the tiered selling structure (though, I think he got the model wrong -- the music is priced <i>way</i> too high), calls our attention to a <a href="http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10784" target="_new">short article by famed musician Brian Eno</a> that highlights the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">point</a> we've been suggesting for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030912/1032238.shtml">years</a>.  The <i>music</i> industry is doing great, and it's doing it by selling scarcities:
<blockquote><i>
Digital technology has made music easier to make and copy, with the result that recorded music is about as readily available as water, and not a whole lot more exciting.
<br /><br />
This seems like bad news, until you pick up a copy of Time Out. Then you realise that the live music scene is exploding, for, unable to make a living from records sales, more and more bands are playing live. That experience can't be put onto a memory card--and people are willing to pay for it, and to pay quite a lot. Concert attendances are at an all-time high: recordings are increasingly ads for live shows, and live shows have become once again the real thing, the unduplicable.....
<br /><br />
The duplicability of recordings has had another unexpected effect. The pressure is on to develop content that isn't easily copyable--so now everything other than the recorded music is becoming the valuable part of what artists sell. Of course they'll still want to sell their music, but now they'll embed that relatively valueless product within a matrix of hard-to-copy (and therefore valuable) artwork. People who won't pay &pound;15 for a CD will pay &pound;150 for the limited edition version with additional artwork, photos, booklet and DVDs. They often already own the music, downloaded--but now they want the art. They're buying art, and they're buying it in a new way. That suggests to me the possibility of a refreshingly democratic art market: a new way for visual artists, designers, animators and film-makers to make a living. So, as one business folds, several others open up.
</i></blockquote>
It's so great to see more and more content creators realizing this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1939174937.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1939174937.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1939174937.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>very-cool</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090519/1939174937</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>My Keynote At Mesh: Growing Communities And Adding True Scarcities</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been asking for video from my keynote talk at the excellent <a href="http://www.meshconference.com/" target="_new">Mesh Conference</a>, and <a href="http://www.meshconference.com/meshtv/" target="_new">here it is</a> (and if you really want to download it, there's an <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cwf473" target="_new">iTunes link</a> as well).  It's also embedded below if you click through.  The whole thing is an hour, but split into four separate videos.  The first two are my presentation and the second two are the Q&#038;A that followed:
<center>
<iframe src="http://www.mdialog.com/mbed/video/28731-mike-masnick-keynote---part-1?width=410" width="410px" height="258px" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
<br /><br />
<iframe src="http://www.mdialog.com/mbed/video/28732-keynote---mike-masnick--pt--2?width=410" width="410px" height="258px" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
<br /><br />
<iframe src="http://www.mdialog.com/mbed/video/28819-keynote---mike-masnick--pt--3?width=410" width="410px" height="258px" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
<br /><br />
<iframe src="http://www.mdialog.com/mbed/video/28820-keynote---mike-masnick--pt--4?width=410" width="410px" height="258px" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
</center>
It was, as always, lots of fun to do.  Also, I met tons of great, wonderful, interesting and fascinating people at the event.  Interacting with people is always the best part of these things.  Thanks to everyone who came out -- and a special thanks to the Mesh Crew: Mathew, Rob, Michael, Stuart and Mark who have created something really special with the Mesh event and who are each amazing individuals as well.
<br /><br />
Also, since people were quizzing me about it later: I actually do "memorize" the presentations and what's coming next.  I don't see what the next slide is before I bring it up and no (as two separate people asked me...) I did not have a little device in my ear telling me what was coming next....<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>have-fun-with-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090410/1359174465</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>BitTorrent Site Mininova Makes It Easier To Sell Scarcities With Downloads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0243584322.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0243584322.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been sending in the news that popular BitTorrent site Mininova is now making it <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/mininova-helps-artists-to-monetize-torrents-090330/" target="_new">much easier to monetize your own BitTorrented music</a>.  Basically, it makes it easy to sell <i>other things</i> alongside the torrent.  This is very much about using the free music to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">sell related scarcities</a>, such as concert tickets, CDs or other promotional goods.  Imagine taking the various <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/171933538.shtml">tiered</a> upsell solutions that are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090326/2255304272.shtml">becoming popular</a> and connecting them directly to your own torrent of the music?  As the story notes, at least one indie record label, Beep! Beep!, has signed up and is releasing all of its music via this system -- and even offering those who download a 20% discount on products as a thank you for helping to seed the files:
<blockquote><i>
"It's only fair not to pay for something you haven't heard yet.  In our opinion torrents are an excellent way to present you with our music. That's why Beep! Beep! and Mininova have teamed up. We like the fact that you're taking the effort to get to know new music. In fact, we'd like to thank you for downloading and seeding our music by giving you a discount on our hardcopies."
</i></blockquote>
But, of course, we'll probably still hear from people about how such torrent sites are destroying the recording industry... even as it helps enable exactly what's coming next.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0243584322.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0243584322.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0243584322.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>neat</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090331/0243584322</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>