I first heard of Amanda on, of all places, the Howard Stern Show. He happened to play one of her live renditions of "I'm a Creep" on the uke. I had to find out more. I'm hard core now. I just have to go see a show. She's amazing.
"Miller's previous work included convincing Time Warner to turn AOL's walled garden into an open and free platform... which was the right move..."
Oh really? You'd have a hard time convincing Time Warner shareholders of that now. The acquisition was a disaster for Time, because they just didn't think this one through. There was definitely an opportunity for Time there, but they squandered it. Making it free eliminated an income stream, turning AOL into an albatross. Instead of putting TW content exclusively on AOL and raising its value making subscriptions a viable option, they turned it into yet another internet portal. Big whoop.
There is cost and then there is value. I have no problem with the publishing industry charging for their online content if there is something there worth paying for.
Mike keeps harping about "bad business models" but the paying for content thing has been going on for hundreds of years until the whole internet thing sprang up on them. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.
I agree that the publishing companies did not do a very good job of positioning themselves in the digital arenas, but to say that they can only survive if they would just take a lesson from Google is rather specious. The industries are different. Google is simply a portal and an aggregator. It doesn't pay for its content.
The publishing industry missed a big opportunity, but it had nothing to do with how to go free and make money. It had everything to do with the way it markets itself and build up its own value in the marketplace. For years, the newspaper industry operated with margins of 25% or more. Where did all that profit go? Certainly not into marketing itself better or figuring out how to best take advantage of new technologies.
If they provide a good value with their content, people will pay for it. If they provide more of the same and just put a price tag on it, they are indeed doomed.
Springfield, Massachusetts, the birthplace of Dr. Seuss, has a Bright Nights Celebration every Christmas season in its largest city park, Forest Park. They decorate the roads in the park with lighting displays of various scenes, including characters from Dr. Seuss books. The city pays a princely sum to the company who sets up the displays and presumably to the Seuss estate, but they also make a considerable amount of money from the attraction to help pay for the upkeep of the park. Cars are charged $10 or so to drive through the attraction.
I really see nothing wrong with the Seuss estate trying to protect its copyrights and trademarks. If it's done properly, everyone can benefit.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Garbin.
Would you believe?
I first heard of Amanda on, of all places, the Howard Stern Show. He happened to play one of her live renditions of "I'm a Creep" on the uke. I had to find out more. I'm hard core now. I just have to go see a show. She's amazing.
Miller and AOL
"Miller's previous work included convincing Time Warner to turn AOL's walled garden into an open and free platform... which was the right move..."
Oh really? You'd have a hard time convincing Time Warner shareholders of that now. The acquisition was a disaster for Time, because they just didn't think this one through. There was definitely an opportunity for Time there, but they squandered it. Making it free eliminated an income stream, turning AOL into an albatross. Instead of putting TW content exclusively on AOL and raising its value making subscriptions a viable option, they turned it into yet another internet portal. Big whoop.
Cost v. Value
There is cost and then there is value. I have no problem with the publishing industry charging for their online content if there is something there worth paying for.
Mike keeps harping about "bad business models" but the paying for content thing has been going on for hundreds of years until the whole internet thing sprang up on them. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.
I agree that the publishing companies did not do a very good job of positioning themselves in the digital arenas, but to say that they can only survive if they would just take a lesson from Google is rather specious. The industries are different. Google is simply a portal and an aggregator. It doesn't pay for its content.
The publishing industry missed a big opportunity, but it had nothing to do with how to go free and make money. It had everything to do with the way it markets itself and build up its own value in the marketplace. For years, the newspaper industry operated with margins of 25% or more. Where did all that profit go? Certainly not into marketing itself better or figuring out how to best take advantage of new technologies.
If they provide a good value with their content, people will pay for it. If they provide more of the same and just put a price tag on it, they are indeed doomed.
Springfield, Massachusetts, the birthplace of Dr. Seuss, has a Bright Nights Celebration every Christmas season in its largest city park, Forest Park. They decorate the roads in the park with lighting displays of various scenes, including characters from Dr. Seuss books. The city pays a princely sum to the company who sets up the displays and presumably to the Seuss estate, but they also make a considerable amount of money from the attraction to help pay for the upkeep of the park. Cars are charged $10 or so to drive through the attraction.
I really see nothing wrong with the Seuss estate trying to protect its copyrights and trademarks. If it's done properly, everyone can benefit.