9.21.2005

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: As I've been saying for about a decade now (cue bluster), it's terrifically difficult to shove the "digital content is free" genie back in the bottle. My contention has long been that we're headed to an intellectual property model where packaged content -- recorded, static, an artifact -- will be free, and performed content -- brand new, created in the moment, part of a live experience -- will cost money. In other words, you can listen to U2 recordings all you want, for free, but you gotta pay to see 'em when they come to Chicago (or when they're on pay-per-view, at least if you want to see it live). You can read Malcolm Gladwell's book (or listen to it) basically for nothing (you can pay for the portable package, the book, if you want), but you have to pay to have him come to your company and speak or think. Etc.

Here's another great example of someone subverting the pay-for-static model, this time the New York Times' attempt to shove its marquee columnists behind a wall they call TimesSelect.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Obviously, they have noticed all the data they have showing that the most-emailed articles are usually from the Op-Ed pages, and they are trying to get some revenue out of that phenomenon. But it just seems a little bizarre to me.

Just a coincidence that they announced approximately 500 layoffs this week?

Scott Hess said...

I just keep thinking that content creators -- whether they're large media firms, record labels, artists and writers, etc. -- have been remarkably slow to accept the sea change in the market. As such many seem to be dying a slow and possibly needless death...