Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks for the summary, Geoff. I really should have gone... but hey, it was the weekend!
Interesting times for 'the media' indeed. If PB is going to be the principle survivor in the TV world, New Zealand had better get some more! TVNZ is due for a lot more change- imagine One and 2 as 7 and 6. -
Great David Simon piece Matthew- thanks for linking to that. He has said it before, but the passion is still there.
It's interesting that Simon is just as adamant as Murdoch that content cannot be free (however much it might, sigh, 'want' to be- just as my left testicle wants to be an astronaut. Dreams are free. Information does not dream.)
I don't think there'd be much those two would agree on. Both, from different directions, perspectives and values, know the newspaper business deeply and broadly. That's a 'pincer-movement' with bite.
So what might people be willing to pay for great local coverage- and, say, something of an aggregator's role (which the papers have been doing forever- what else is AP/Reuters?)-?
It would take a LOT of people paying a lowish- but not unrealistic- sum like $100 a year, to get a viable service running, even assuming (which is not safe) advertising might do better than doubling that.
And it'd be competing immediately with all the big outlets which are currently free. -
Sacha- I tend to agree about the mindless conflation. But 6% doesn't seem unreasonable to me- it's a fairly minor percentage for what is a big part of the attraction of the station.
Any idea what is paid in other countries?
Steve: the move to CDs has been canvassed: the companies were very aware at the time of the move of the 'dangers' of copying. It was used as a reason for making CDs MORE expensive, even though they were cheaper to produce and distribute than vinyl.
It was a shoddy rational for price-gouging. Penalise your legitimate customers for the possibility of them doing something you don't want, and hey, after a while they will start to feel they should be doing it....
But today being digital or not isn't a choice- we're way past that point. Producing analogue copies has been a good business practice- books, vinyl spring to mind- for a some producers. But- in the words of Dr Dungbeetle- "whatever you can think, we can digitise" - that horse is well down the road. -
Don't think anyone's disputing the facts. Anderson talks about it himself on his blog, linked above.
It's just an ironic footnote to the larger argument: I'd like to see him take on some of the points Gladwell makes, but not holding the breath ;) -
Anderson blogs about his mistake- mentions, but fails to return fire at Gladwell... and links to another long and "mixed" review of 'Free' from the Boston Globe.
-
There's a fascinating discussion that follows VQR's discovery that chunks of Anderson's book are lifted almost verbatim, and unattributed- mostly from wikipedia, but other sources as well.
Anderson turns up in the comments, and explains it as a mistake. I think that's probably true. But jeepers. It's a big, smelly VERY embarassing and possibly costly mistake... -
I may be a blowhard, but I’m not a hypocrite
Thanks Keir, et al- saw that too, rather later...
Anderson has earned some respect, and that helps. He's usually interesting- as is wired- and future-looking. I think here he's interesting too: but interestingly wrong- in about sixteen ways (and wrong in some glaring and rather boring ways too: I'm not gonna be rushing to read this, based on the, ahem, 'wildly attractive pricing'... )
The basic premise is that you can attract people with 'free' and then... sell them stuff. Well, yeah... but mostly that's not new- it's the old model of broadcasting/community newpapers selling eyeballs, etc etc. Plus the rather cheesy 'merchandising' model Hollywood's been exploiting for decades.
And so far it's mostly based on hope not reality: the reality is that advertisers and tee-shirt buyers are not simply not there with enough dollars.
The most successful digital publishing 'model' that I've seen is TMP (Talking Points Memo).
Journalist Josh Marshall started blogging in rage and frustration after the 2000 election in the US. He clearly attracted eyeballs and advertising- the site has grown and grown, and he's just about to almost double his staff. It's been a remarkable journey.
He's done it by doing not just one, but a host of things right. The site does a lot of US political news collation, but it filters it through a leftish/Democratic lens, and offers it up with a lot of commentary, some deep analysis, and a good dash of wit.
Vitally Marshall also, from the start, built a sense of community. Now there are blogs and comments galore, but from the beginning he asked for tip-offs and feedback, and put (and they still do) a lot of readers' comments on the 'front page'.
There was a host of fresh content most days- that kept people coming back. So when he first started to expand, he was able to ask that community for help- and a lot of us (probably thousands!) ponied up cash for the first few hires- a journalist here, an investigative 'muck-raker' there...
Increasingly they've been able to add original reporting.
Now it's a fairly sizable journalistic enterprise, with a range of editors, columnists and commentators; video clips; and reporters as well. It seems to be financed mostly by advertising- some quite loopy ads, too!
It's been a remarkable journey. -
Malcolm Gladwell takes a hatchet to Chris Anderson's "Free".
Required reading for all those too intoxicated with the notion of 'almost-free' copying and distribution to consider the costs of, eg, production.
Gotta love this:Chris Anderson’s new book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” (Hyperion; $26.99)
-
Saw a great cartoon the other day: two guys standing on the sidewalk, looking rather thoughtful, one saying to the other: "But you knew I was straight when you married me."
It kind've opened my eyes to something about marriage: how vitally this sort of formal partnerhip, the combining of two extended families, or the creation of a new "nuclear" unit, or however it's concieved, is wrapped up in "the rich tapestry of life."
Gay marriage opens up all manner of possibilities- not all "good". There will be guys who'll marry another guy for his money; people who change, who change their minds, who betray each other or act in bad faith.
I'm not mentioning this as an argument against gay marriage in any way- quite the contrary. It's a part of the richness of life, good and bad, in all it's squalid glory- that everyone absolutely should have some chance to participate in.
It just made me think about it in a little more depth than the happy glow of a loving couple getting hitched. It's about full participation in the guts of the business of being human. -
AFAIK and IANAL! but apart from the photocopying, none of the things you describe sound like they would be against the current law, in an educational context.
As far as youtube goes, that's diffeent. I don't think it's valid to argue that everything ever made should be on youtube, just because it's handy. Though it sometimes seems as as everything is on youtube...
I agree the uncertainty is unsettling. But surely you're not really thinking you can't read aloud to students?
Fighting the real battles is tough enough, without fighting chimera and goblins in our nightmares...