Mike, I can buy the point you are making here. But, as you might suspect, the newspaper/magazine industry will not get it. They won't get it even five years down the road when it should become obvious to them (they will find some other excuse why their business model didn't work.)
I am doing some consulting right now for a major museum. Their marketing VP wants help ramping up a project that is essentially a web magazine in their domain of expertise. Her focus is on all the great content they can deliver.
My question five minutes into our first meeting was: how do you plan to monetize this? (In fact, most of this blogs readership would have known to ask that question.)
Her answer was essentially, "I don't know yet." This was a fair answer as she is bringing me in very early to the project. But as we explored her options for monetizing, it became clear that paying for content was very high on her list. I told her it wouldn't work and explained why (the basic stuff Mike talks about). She insisted that lots of newspapers are going to start charging for content soon. And she is confident that because her material is high quality, it will have value.
Sigh.
or Here Here!
Not sure which is correct. But either way, this is a very good post.
I had a similar event happen to me on Christmas day flying to Hawaii. I had put my boarding pass in my backpack which ran through the detector. Ad the human detector, the guard asked to see my boarding pass. I told him it was in my backpack inside the other detector.
He then told me I wouldn't be able to fly that day. When I looked confused, he told me he was joking.
And my thought was: I am not allowed to make jokes here, then you shouldn't be allowed to make jokes here either.
As I thought about it later, had I gone ballistic, they would have arrested me. But when it became clear I went ballistic over his joke - he would have been in a fair amount of trouble too.
I just came on line to post the same thing. Nice to see others thought of it too.
I hadn't ever thought about the fact that other people were sharing my experience. But it certainly is true that I once had a Real subscription (to listen to basketball and football games) and ended up giving up the games in order to drop Real given the frustrations I had with them.
Sure does look like I was not the only one.
I don't see how Google can win this one.
China's trump card is that they are a non-Democratic state. They can take the Google employees in China (mostly Chinese nationals, I presume) and throw them in prison or worse.
In short, China has draconian negotiating tools available that Google can't match.
They just don't make tinfoil hats like they used to.
A lobbyist for the lobbying industry? Now THAT is a bottom feeder.
If France pulls this off, expect the tech companies to become a strong unified voice against the arguments the media companies are making.
And that voice might be helpful.
I signed up early to be part of Obama's web presence. Am fairly happy with his performance as President (and anticipate voting for him again), but have been very disappointed with his online presence. Mike's post captures what I have been feeling, but didn't know how to say.
I still get emails from Obama and staff, but for the past year they've gone directly into the bit bucket. The broadcast political pablum holds no value to me. Had they gotten me involved, it would have been a very different year.
Someday I will enjoy reading the article about how/why they dropped the ball on this.
"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."
Obviously the PR guy was told what to say, probably by the lawyers.
Given that Pogue and 400 others have the charges on their bills, what the canned statement effectively means is:
"We lied to the F.C.C."
He looks a lot like Jared's before picture.
I filed for a patent for the business process of creating a "DidXRapeHisTwoFosterDaughters.com" website each time a story like this comes up.
You will all have to pay me!
Godin makes a great point again. As he says, "We need to stop assuming that digital goods are just like physical goods, but shinier."
great in a social exhibitionism sort of way.
I hope the gallery places the mural in a prominent position just inside its front door.
And I hope the copyright holder (artist or gallery) permits free online reproduction of this piece so the message the Olympics (or at least the City of Vancouver) is trying to suppress is spread far and wide.
I also agree with the sentiment that the gallery ought to leave the mural out front and force the city to forcibly remove it. The episode would undoubtedly be captured on video and posted all over the Internet.
I have some flexibility when using it for education. There are also significant limitations to my fair use rights.
That said, the PR burn to them for going after an educator is something they'd have to consider. That and the Streisand Effect.
My question to the advisory committee is whether this means that it's now inappropriate for a judge to have lunch with a lawyer friend, or engage in email banter with lawyer friends? Is attending the same party now off limits?
The better analogy is whether judges can be members of the same country club as lawyers who might appear before them.
It would be very interesting to see the Florida advisory committee rule against this.
Anyone here know how long the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T? I would love to get an iPhone, but won't use AT&T (even before reading this post) due to poor signal quality in Chicago.
The whole recent ad controversy showing how poor their nationwide 3G coverage is strengthens my decision.
So, I want an iPhone when I can get it with another provider who supports Chicago (and other places) better.
Re: nytimes.com unreliable source
Thank you for your off-topic gripe.