It hurts so much to see a sloppy reprisal too, which is why I must now attempt to make a sloppy one too.
In my mind this is the bit we need to be conscious of: Content has value, but the distribution method sets the price.
And that is why both slightly miss the point in my mind.
If we look at music (because it's a simple model with many distribution methods which helps create clear comparisons) we have this:
* A ring tone: £4.50 (ringtones-direct.com), midi file of 10 seconds.
* A CD album: £16.49 (HMV), average 10 tracks, £1.65 per track, full CD quality.
* A CD single: £1.99 (Tesco, if you can find singles), average 2 tracks, £1 per track, full CD quality.
* iTunes: £0.79 per track (lossy).
* MP3 .torrent: £0.00 per track (lossy).
* FLAC .torrent: £0.00 per track, full CD quality.
The content has value in all formats, but the highest price is associated to the format in which the distribution is most directly controlled (phones, ring tones, and the DRM scheme on some phones which force the use of a DRM signed audio file), amusingly it's also the lowest quality representation of the content.
As the control over the distribution fades the price plummets until we reach bittorrents and the people doing the distribution where the price is zero, although clearly value is still there as it wouldn't be downloaded otherwise.
What neither argument made was the distinction that the price is set by the format and distribution and not by the content. The content has value, that is undeniable, but value != price and that is what so many find hard to resolve.
The NYT is widely distributed and tends to have a lower price than the Economist, which is still widely distributed but less so and has a higher price. Specialist journals distributed as part of memberships to societys have a very high price.
When I look at price, it's not the # of words that determines the price, it's nearly always the format and distribution method. The more control that can be exerted by the content owners, the higher they are able to set the price.
Disclaimer: I always write these things feeling agog at what I've read... I have not researched things specifically and have not published any papers to back up these assertions. Take them with a pinch of meh.
It hurts so much to see a sloppy reprisal too, which is why I must now attempt to make a sloppy one too.
In my mind this is the bit we need to be conscious of: Content has value, but the distribution method sets the price.
And that is why both slightly miss the point in my mind.
If we look at music (because it's a simple model with many distribution methods which helps create clear comparisons) we have this:
* A ring tone: £4.50 (ringtones-direct.com), midi file of 10 seconds.
* A CD album: £16.49 (HMV), average 10 tracks, £1.65 per track, full CD quality.
* A CD single: £1.99 (Tesco, if you can find singles), average 2 tracks, £1 per track, full CD quality.
* iTunes: £0.79 per track (lossy).
* MP3 .torrent: £0.00 per track (lossy).
* FLAC .torrent: £0.00 per track, full CD quality.
The content has value in all formats, but the highest price is associated to the format in which the distribution is most directly controlled (phones, ring tones, and the DRM scheme on some phones which force the use of a DRM signed audio file), amusingly it's also the lowest quality representation of the content.
As the control over the distribution fades the price plummets until we reach bittorrents and the people doing the distribution where the price is zero, although clearly value is still there as it wouldn't be downloaded otherwise.
What neither argument made was the distinction that the price is set by the format and distribution and not by the content. The content has value, that is undeniable, but value != price and that is what so many find hard to resolve.
The NYT is widely distributed and tends to have a lower price than the Economist, which is still widely distributed but less so and has a higher price. Specialist journals distributed as part of memberships to societys have a very high price.
When I look at price, it's not the # of words that determines the price, it's nearly always the format and distribution method. The more control that can be exerted by the content owners, the higher they are able to set the price.
Disclaimer: I always write these things feeling agog at what I've read... I have not researched things specifically and have not published any papers to back up these assertions. Take them with a pinch of meh.