Charging for content

lesrosbifs
New Member

Posts: 15

Charging for content Jan 22, 2011 18:33:46 GMT

Quote

Post by lesrosbifs on Jan 22, 2011 18:33:46 GMT

I feel obliged to post, following a RT from the "Professor of Pay Walls", Paul Tomkins, and a retweet of an article he made yesterday by one of his cohort. Here is the link if it passed you by: numbersgameblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/quality-writing-isnt-free.html

Anyway, before I get into the whole charging-for-your-content debate, there were a few comments from the article that really ground my gears. Such as:

First, the analysis at The Tomkins Times is well worth the £3.50 (~$6) per month that a subscriber pays. Paul Tomkins, the site's main author and sole editor, provides two to three wonderfully insightful articles a week

2-3 a week? I could list dozens of free football blogs out there who offer more a week for free...

We're not talking about throw-away posts full of stats or rumors you've heard elsewhere and were compiled in 10 minutes.

This comment really upset me. How patronising could one get? Sure, if he's talking about Tribal Football, fine. But it seems to me that the author is slapping down the whole football blogging community with one throwaway remark.

Third, the only way to comment on a posting is to be a subscriber. This ensures that comments by readers are top notch. No trolls. No jerks

Don't we all vet comments before publishing them?

Frankly, much of the content (of football writing on the internet) probably wasn't worth much so free was probably the right price for it.

Again, has the author been stuck in a bubble for a few years?

How long did the author of this post spend on it? 10 minutes? it's insulting, factually incorrect and covered in so much brown-nosery it deserves to be framed, simply as an example of how to show man-love to someone. Perhaps.

Putting the ridiculousness of that article aside, I would like to go on record as saying I have no beef with Tomkins or the author of the article. Their modus operandi is theirs to choose. So long as they don't decide to drag the whole football blogging community down, which they seem intent on doing so.

In terms of charging for content though, I really don't see the point. Sure, it would be nice to make money out of it, but that's not why I do it.

So what are your thoughts on sticking a paywall in front of your place?

9men New Member Posts: 27	Charging for content Jan 22, 2011 19:14:55 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by 9men on Jan 22, 2011 19:14:55 GMT Given that Dagenham aren't exactly the biggest draw I doubt anybody would pay!
	We Only Need Nine Men ~ Dagenham & Redbridge blog ~ www.9-men.co.uk twitter.com/9men

twistedblood
New Member

Posts: 5

Charging for content Jan 23, 2011 0:52:44 GMT

Quote

Post by twistedblood on Jan 23, 2011 0:52:44 GMT

Gav, I know what you mean about that piece, I read it and bridled a bit too. But I think your diagnosis of brown-nosery is more likely than any particular malice toward blogging in general.

On the pay-wall question, I think 9men is right, and this is the problem for anyone who doesn't run a site dedicated to a club with a large fanbase. Essentially, the model requires that there be a large number of possible customers, so that the percentage of those willing to pay is sufficient to sustain the site.

Bluntly, if Tomkins had grown up supporting Hayes, there wouldn't be a prayer of the model working, however good the writing or cogent the analysis.

It might also be worth noting that asking someone to pay in order to comment in no way prevents them being a jerk. Plenty of jerks have disposable income, and more than a few follow Liverpool ...

lesrosbifs
New Member

Posts: 15

Charging for content Jan 23, 2011 11:29:04 GMT

Quote

Post by lesrosbifs on Jan 23, 2011 11:29:04 GMT

If it isnt malice thn it is certainly something he accuses other football bloggers of: a lack of research. A quick google will throw up a Guardian piece on football blogs - 100 of them. To be so dismissive of the efforts of people who work their socks off, then work their socks off again to produce quality content for their own sites, smacks of sheer ignorance at best. If I could via my iPhone, I wod reply to him again...

lanternerouge
Junior Member

Posts: 57

Charging for content Jan 26, 2011 13:12:45 GMT

Quote

Post by lanternerouge on Jan 26, 2011 13:12:45 GMT

You have probably seen that Zach has now posted a rejoinder of sorts:

numbersgameblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/power-of-words.html

which Black & White and Read all Over have discussed:

blackandwhiteandreadallover.blogspot.com/2011/01/best-things-in-life-arent-free.html

rokerreport
New Member

Posts: 41

Charging for content Jan 27, 2011 6:23:12 GMT

Quote

Post by rokerreport on Jan 27, 2011 6:23:12 GMT

People are well within their rights to charge for content. I've no beef with that, but its a turn off for me.

It would have to be the best thing I've ever read for me to consider subscribing, I couldn't do that to our readers either.

While I enjoy it, our content will always be free, it's a hobby. We have a shop and a few tie ins that bring loose change. Barely enough for a night out in all honesty, and that goes back into site promotion and updates etc.

wchr
New Member

Posts: 5

Charging for content Feb 10, 2011 0:16:56 GMT

Quote

Post by wchr on Feb 10, 2011 0:16:56 GMT

I read The Guardian website every day, but if they started charging for it, I'd stop. However, I can see a day when that would change - when we all have an iPad equivalent in our pockets, and when it's no longer worth the trees or the environmental degradation to print newspapers. It's just I haven't got used to that idea yet (I still love the thud of a daily paper on my doorstep), but, like CD players, MP3 players, and cell phones, I'm sure that I eventually will.

A few years down the line, charging will be the norm for those working on their blogs/sites full time, but you'll have to build up a loyal readership through consistently excellent content over a long period of time before you can do that. And you can't do that without cash, time, dedication and professionalism up front, unless you're in the position to offer something truly unique. I think it'll be the current big print publications that will end up the dominant players, and the major corporate sites that have already established themselves. It's at least a decade since the internet became irreversibly mainstream.

Looking at that list of 100 blogs (which in itself only scratches the surface), how many of them would you pay for, even if it was only a quid a month?

unprofessionalfoul
New Member

Posts: 12

Charging for content Feb 10, 2011 2:54:26 GMT

Quote

Post by unprofessionalfoul on Feb 10, 2011 2:54:26 GMT

I think the other thing is that paywalls create an expectation in the consumer for what's lurking behind. It's telling you that the author(s) feel that their content is worth paying for, investing in. Few could live up to that expectation. Good example of one who tried to do it a little differently was Fake Sigi. Offered pay subscriptions, but still kept his site open, figuring that those who felt compelled to pay would still pay to support the site while others could read gratis and perhaps one day advance to paying in.

www.unprofessionalfoul.com

www.twitter.com/UFJamesT

Post by lesrosbifs on Jan 22, 2011 18:33:46 GMT

Post by 9men on Jan 22, 2011 19:14:55 GMT

Post by twistedblood on Jan 23, 2011 0:52:44 GMT

Post by lesrosbifs on Jan 23, 2011 11:29:04 GMT

Post by lanternerouge on Jan 26, 2011 13:12:45 GMT

Post by rokerreport on Jan 27, 2011 6:23:12 GMT

Post by wchr on Feb 10, 2011 0:16:56 GMT

Post by unprofessionalfoul on Feb 10, 2011 2:54:26 GMT