Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Content Is King (1996)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#11

Post by elvinyung »

The marketplace of ideas idealism is interesting. It seems to crop up every now and then as the aspirational model for how ideas should propagate especially with technological mediation. But I'm not sure how valid it is, given that the reasoning is by definition circular (that the best idea is the most popular and the most popular idea is the best).

But either way, maybe the world would be better if content wasn't free, if it wasn't trivial and inexpensive to artificially inflate access to attention. As it stands our "marketplace of ideas" is at best a market for lemons.

When did we go from the shiny, utopian visions to this advert-overloaded cyberpunk future of attention hackers [1] and panoptic sousveillance?

[1] https://points.datasociety.net/hacking-the-attention-economy...

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#12

Post by Joeboy »

At any given moment there usually seem to be one or two New York Times articles on the HN front page, which I assume means a reasonable proportion of us are subscribers.

I don't really see what's wrong with the subscription / paywall model, other than it means letting go of "information wants to be free" dogma and admitting Rupert Murdoch was right about something. At this point it seems preferable to the ad-driven business model.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#13

Post by Donzo »

Joeboy wrote: post #12

At any given moment there usually seem to be one or two New York Times articles on the HN front page, which I assume means a reasonable proportion of us are subscribers. I don't really see what's wrong with the subscription / paywall model, other than it means letting go of "information wants to be free" dogma and admitting Rupert Murdoch was right about something. At this point it seems preferable to the ad-driven b…

One issue that is not addressed by the subscription model is the subsidizing effect that the ad-based model has:

The finance professional who lives in New York has very valuable page views. The African school girl does not. Yet, through advertising their values are averaged. The affluent subsidize the poor without even knowing it.

Putting content behind a pay-wall reduces this effect and creates an informational disparity that will only broaden the gap of equality between the two.

The New York finance professional just has to decide that the subscription is "worth" paying. The African school girl cannot make this same decision.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#14

Post by Silixon »

Donzo wrote: post #13
Joeboy wrote: post #12

At any given moment there usually seem to be one or two New York Times articles on the HN front page, which I assume means a reasonable proportion of us are subscribers. I don't really see what's wrong with the subscription / paywall model, other than it means letting go of "information wants to be free" dogma and admitting Rupert Murdoch was right about something. At this point it seems preferable to the ad-driven b…

One issue that is not addressed by the subscription model is the subsidizing effect that the ad-based model has: The finance professional who lives in New York has very valuable page views. The African school girl does not. Yet, through advertising their values are averaged. The affluent subsidize the poor without even knowing it. Putting content behind a pay-wall reduces this effect and creates an informational disp…

Opportunity costs only exist wherein opportunities exist.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#15

Post by soneil »

bernardlunn wrote: post #8
KenanSulayman wrote: post #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..

22 years later, we still don’t have a good way to pay for content!

I think we do - advertising is still a perfectly legitimate way to pay for 'free' content., plus subscriptions where they make sense.

The current problem isn't that we can't or won't pay, or we can't or won't accept advertising. It's that each generation of adtech becomes more and more user-hostile until we're forced to fight back.

So the popup became the pop-under, and devolved into popup bombs until browsers were forced to act. Tracking has gone from associating an ad-view with its context, to growing that context across their entire ad network until they've profiled exactly what demographics and markets you fit into, and browsers are starting to fight back.

It's not that we won't accept advertising. It's that advertising is in a constant race to the bottom. And I think - I hope - we're about hitting the bottom of the current generation of adtech.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#16

Post by qbrass »

munfred wrote: post #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…

PayPal and credit card companies made paying online easier than the various micro-payment companies could, but weren't interested in the same business model.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#17

Post by amelius »

munfred wrote: post #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…

Check out blendle.com for instance.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#19

Post by code_duck »

Joeboy wrote: post #12

At any given moment there usually seem to be one or two New York Times articles on the HN front page, which I assume means a reasonable proportion of us are subscribers. I don't really see what's wrong with the subscription / paywall model, other than it means letting go of "information wants to be free" dogma and admitting Rupert Murdoch was right about something. At this point it seems preferable to the ad-driven b…

I assume that a reasonable proportion of us clear our browser data frequently.

Re: Content Is King (1996)

#20

Post by tannhaeuser »

qbrass wrote: post #16
munfred wrote: post #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…

PayPal and credit card companies made paying online easier than the various micro-payment companies could, but weren't interested in the same business model.

There's still the model of sending content via MMS to smart phones (or even dumb phones) with carrier billing. Yes the one that has been used for selling custom ringtones in the 1990s. With Android's stagefreight bug a couple years ago Google managed to put it out of consideration such that people must go to app stores instead. But carrier billing has always been the obvious native payment method on the mobile web where telcos already have your details and a customer relationship.
Post reply on HN