Content Is King (1996)
web.archive.org
Content Is King (1996)
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#2> For the Internet to thrive, content providers must be paid for their work. The long-term prospects are good, but I expect a lot of disappointment in the short-term as content companies struggle to make money through advertising or subscriptions. It isn't working yet, and it may not for some time.
And that was back in 1996..
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#3> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate.
> But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel, you won't be writing a check or getting a bill in the mail for a nickel. You'll just click on what you want, knowing you'll be charged a nickel on an aggregated basis.
To think this practice still isn't widespread 22 years later...!
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#4> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate.
> But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel, you won't be writing a check or getting a bill in the mail for a nickel. You'll just click on what you want, knowing you'll be charged a nickel on an aggregated basis.
> This technology will liberate publishers to charge small amounts of money, in the hope of attracting wide audiences.
> Those who succeed will propel the Internet forward as a marketplace of ideas, experiences, and products-a marketplace of content.
I wonder what happened to the future of 1996..
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#5> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate. > But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel…
> I wonder what happened to the future of 1996..
The need for surveillance and the potential for social control that it offers.
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#6> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate. > But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel…
It is more possible now to do though thanks to cryptocurrencies.
The brave browser in particular has built in micropayments feature.
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#7> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate. > But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel…
It is more possible now to do though thanks to cryptocurrencies. The brave browser in particular has built in micropayments feature. https://brave.com/introducing-brave-payments/
I believe that micropayments is one key revenue plank. But I am highly sceptical that mass switchover to another browser is the way to get there.
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#8> For the Internet to thrive, content providers must be paid for their work. The long-term prospects are good, but I expect a lot of disappointment in the short-term as content companies struggle to make money through advertising or subscriptions. It isn't working yet, and it may not for some time. And that was back in 1996..
22 years later, we still don’t have a good way to pay for content!
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#9> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate. > But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel…
I don't think that cryptocurrencies are the future, but I do think that patronage-based crowdfinance platforms (like Patreon) serve as a guide for where we should be heading, culturally.
Re: Content Is King (1996)
#10> A major reason paying for content doesn't work very well yet is that it's not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate. > But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel…
I think search engines and social media happened. Basically, unless your work is distributed for free, your audience won't find it, since Google doesn't rank content well if it's got a mandatory paywall and people won't share stuff on social media if there's a good chance most others won't be able to read/consume it.
It's also possibly because the internet and content is in the midst of an endless race to the bottom. People are giving away their work for free, so people have come to expect that as the norm and are less incentivised to pay for anything further down the line (because if they do, their free competitors will eat their lunch). It's a lot like what's happening in the smartphone app market, where due to all the ad supported/free/99 cent apps available, anyone trying to sell an app for more than a few dollars is going to lose most of their audience.