Comments on: Alan Mutter’s question backfires

By: Jimmy Olsen

Jimmy Olsen — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:30:08 +0000

So how am I going to get paid?

By: The micropayment debate continues

The micropayment debate continues — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:44:16 +0000

[...] blogs at Reflections of a Newsosaur, and whose recent argument about paying for things I took on in this post. But there has been an awful lot of talk about the issue over the past few weeks and months, [...]

By: The micropayment debate continues » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:40:07 +0000

By: Eating my own dogfood « BuzzMachine

Eating my own dogfood « BuzzMachine — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:29:41 +0000

[...] Windsor and Matthew Ingram then pick up their swords and argue with Alan. Ingram says: This no doubt seemed like a slam-dunk argument to Alan. After all, as he notes towards the end of [...]

By: Newsosaur roars at the BuzzMachine « Virtualjournalist

Newsosaur roars at the BuzzMachine « Virtualjournalist — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:27:44 +0000

[...] himself answers that question (”I do fully confess my hypocrisy in the book”). So does Mathew Ingram, writing for Nieman Journalism Lab: Jarvis has been writing about his theories on content online [...]

By: Frymaster

Frymaster — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:21:49 +0000

Head of the nail, please meet this hammer. Artificial scarcity, please meet obsolescence.

All seriousness aside, what’s with this “…which, somehow, Providence will monetize”? Look, we’ll do our part, but we’re not paying for the whole damn thing!

By: Alan Mutter’s question backfires

Alan Mutter’s question backfires — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:26:09 +0000

[...] the rest of this post at the Nieman Journalism Lab) [...]

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:20:51 +0000

That’s a good point, Michael. And yes, Tim — by that definition I guess Alan’s question didn’t backfire :-)

By: Tim Windsor

Tim Windsor — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:52:17 +0000

At the risk of being Mister Contrarian, I’m not so sure Alan’s post “backfired.” The conversation it sparked was lively and reasonably civil. And it even spilled over to here.

:-)

By: MichaelJ

MichaelJ — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:26:47 +0000

“give away content, and then find ways of adding value to it — packaging it in a convenient form, for example, or adding to it in some useful fashion, creating a relationship around it — and then monetize that.”

Read for free, pay for Print.

Print is not just a container for the information in it. It is a physical object that is valued for different reasons by different people at different times.

For the serious thinker, a book is the best way to fix the ideas and facts so they can rumble around the head in the service of getting new ideas.

For most everyone else, a book is a token. As in “people like us, buy this book” or “this would be a perfect present for…”

For some people, a book is the occasion for a social interaction – book reading groups and children’s books that are read by parents to children.

For self publishers a book is a token that they are “real writers” and the story they have to tell is important- usually for their friends and families.

I am struck by how often writers and journalists believe that the words themselves are the value that people should pay for.

It’s just another version of the “bad customer” syndrome. Nothing wrong with my product, it’s just the customer doesn’t want to give me money for it.

By: new music paradigm » Blog Archive » Alan Mutter’s question backfires

new music paradigm » Blog Archive » Alan Mutter’s question backfires — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:41:47 +0000

[...] Read More… [...]