What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
75 Comments
- casspa, on 10/26/2009, -2/+54Count me in this 55%.
- mercutioviz, on 10/26/2009, -1/+43These content providers need to get into the 21st Century. They've given away "news content" for decades on both TV and radio. To think that people will "pay for content" on the Internet is myopic. Newspaper subscribers didn't "pay for content" like Murdoch so desperately wants to believe. They paid for the delivery mechanism and for convenience. If the big content providers cannot monetize the millions of hits per month on their web sites then they deserve to go out of business because you can certainly bet that more nimble news agencies will find a way to make money delivering the content for free.
- ryanand80, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3355.5% seems a little low.
- badqat, on 10/26/2009, -5/+25Count me in as part of that 55.5%...I'm not paying for any newspaper or magazine content, with the exception of the WSJ, which I get as part of my subscription to the real newspaper itself.
- Hodor, on 10/26/2009, -3/+19I already pay a nice fat bill every month. Content providers, get your money from the cable companies.
- fireashes, on 10/27/2009, -3/+13People will pay for access and not for content.
google knows this and it gives most of the services for free as in you get your news for free in TV/Radio. Nobody pays separately for the news at 7 on tv. You pay for the cable. - AmyVernon, on 10/26/2009, -1/+10But if you didn't subscribe to the paper, you'd have to pay for the online access. Would you still pay for it?
- Natnie, on 10/27/2009, -0/+9I would only pay for QUALITY content. And even then only if it was always quality content. The reason I don't buy magazines? They are worse than the internet for advertising and have far crappier articles.
- wonderchemist, on 10/26/2009, -1/+10Do we really want the encourage the RIAA model of give us money cause our content goes over your wires model?
- stubear, on 10/27/2009, -0/+7The AOL model has already been tried and failed. Let's not reinvent this horror of the internet by encouraging ISPs to ink exclusive deals with content providers.
- dselliott, on 10/27/2009, -1/+8In other words, the "mainstream media" is toast.
- arkwald, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7No, but it doesn't only come from big corporations who have a monopoly on the universe. There used to be barriers for entry into the media market. Recent technological advancements have pretty much nixed those. Combined with the internet the only thing separating journalists from just anyone is that the journalist on average can write better. 99.9% of a news broadcast is now effectively obsolete because anyone can create and publish that now. So in terms of value, mass media cannot function as it had and is still trying to figure out how to make money now.
Paying for that product is secondary to the value equation. - LarkStew, on 10/27/2009, -1/+7Except adverts in magazines don't play stupid sounds at you or jump in front of the article you're trying to read.
- uberduger, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6While the other 54.5% use online math tutorials instead.
- theNazz, on 10/26/2009, -0/+6You mean PRAWN... they are delicious however I have no idea where you are getting free prawns from.
- Sabretou, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6The resultant 1% realize that they shouldn't exist.
*cue X-Files music* - sputnikv, on 10/27/2009, -4/+1044.5% play warcraft
- mercutioviz, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6Actually, that's exactly my point. The consumer buys a TV, plugs in an antenna, and watches the six o'clock news. The consumer doesn't "pay" to watch the news. The consumer simply sits through the commercials. Same goes for radio. The content companies need to figure out a revenue-generating system that does not require all users to subscribe for a fee in order to get news. It's okay if they want to have premium content for paid users, but putting regular news behind a paywall is a first-class ticket to oblivion because someone else will have the same content available for "free" to the consumer.
The content companies need to adapt or die. Welcome to a free market people. - anonymous10, on 10/27/2009, -4/+945.5% realize that there's no risks to using torrents.
- uberduger, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5@Lark: I turned on Adblock for Digg about 2 months ago. The reason? I had a Microsoft advert at the top of the page. No harm, no foul. I moved my mouse across the ad and clicked on a Digg link.
However, in the time between my mouse moving over the ad and my click, the Microsoft ad had expanded down the page, leading me to click on it instead of the link underneath. That for me was the straw that broke the camel's back - the deception of making me view their content *really* pissed me off. I blocked Digg and never looked back. (Websites should vet their adverts before putting them up - Digg isn't getting a single advertising cent from me any longer. Sorry Mr Rose.) - falafelkiosken, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6how many times do we need to repeat this until everyone understands?
- LarkStew, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5@Natnie
But you can't have it both ways, everyone says they're not willing to pay for content but they all say install Adblock so you don't have to bother with the adverts? If websites can't charge you for content and there's not point showing adverts because everyone blocks them how are they supposed to make money to provide that content you like?
Plus Adblock just creates an advertising arms race, it forces adverts to become more insidious like these inline adverts that have appeared in Digg.
So no I don't have Adblock installed. - akpanga, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5Why would I pay for something that is the most plentiful free thing on the net?
- stubear, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5You aren't paying for content, you're paying for access. Just because you pay for road maintenance through taxes doesn't mean you get gas to run your autombile for free.
- MattyC69, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4Esquire Magazine is a big culprit of this. More than 50% of the magazine are adverts. And of those adverts about 80% are either watches, cars or clothing brands.
I was in the airport the other day waiting to catch a flight, and I picked up an Esquire to have a look (I had never read one before) and was shocked that it took 12 (!) pages of ads before I even got to the CONTENTS page! 12 pages of fakkin ads! And it's ALWAYS the same thing. Gay-looking waifs staring longingly at each other, or 2 tone car ads or golf-themes watch ads.
Ridiculous. - covertbadger, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5I'll pay for services, not content. There are a number of websites out there that make hundreds of dollars a year from me, and the thing they have in common is they provide a valuable service that I cannot conveniently get elsewhere. The vast, vast majority of 'content' is worthless crap and I won't pay to access the tiny sliver of quality found here and there. Good content gets rewarded in more traditional ways, e.g. I preordered the Dr Horrible DVD the second it became available.
- diggerado, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5I don't know about anyone else, but I will always offer free content online and I doubt I'm alone. Businesses who lock their content behind paid subscriptions are the sites I hit the back button on. I go somewhere else.
- miffelplix, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4News gathering organizations need to be find a profitable business model. Otherwise, cost-cutting will continue to rip the guts out of journalism, and all that will be left will be opinion, a la Fox News.
What that business model is I don't have a clue. - Sabretou, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3@Lark: I have AdBlock installed because I grew up with my dad telling me never to click on advertising links, and I have made it a point to not click on any ad whatsoever. Even with AdBlock turned off, I wouldn't click on any ads either, so what's the point?
- Joe_rigby, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5I think Google should de-list everything fox news concerned. Then we'll see how much that greedy ***** Murdoch misses his ad revenue from Google. No one is going to pay for news online, when another source is very likely to provide it for free, with the addition of banner ads.
- Locupleto, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4Newspapers need to stop thinking like newspapers and start thinking like on-line content providers.
Do you think Google made a survey if users would pay for online search? - zoomaKabu, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5Not only am I not paying for content, the connection fee better start getting cheaper just like everything else to do with technology. The very definition of "advances in technology" is more function for lower cost.
- lukemiddleton2, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4there are so many free websites, its pointless paying
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4This is Exactly why McCain and his buddies are pitching the "Internet Freedom" act and going against Net Neutrality. The best way to make you pay for things, is not to innovate -- but to make the "free stuff" such a sluggish pain in the butt that you avoid it.
The well-worn paths to Fox covering what a great Hero McCain is, or the Moonie Times telling you how Single Payer option for health care will be Communism, will come up lightning fast. The stuff you pay for that is slightly useful will zip along. That blog that fact checks the stories, or the one telling you the costs savings of Single Payer -- will seem like a modem with a bad circuit.
>> People will pay for content. But it will be delivered on something like iTunes and it will be more useful and convenient. Also, they need to stop propagandizing us and telling us stories about balloon boy or Michael Jackson. All the magazines cannot compete for the imbecile market -- and the main reason is that they are already entertained by the imbecile pogromming on TV. - stubear, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3You do pay for the USPS but not as direct as you would think. If you ever send a letter, even if it's postage paid, you've "paid" for the USPS to function.
- Elranzer, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4Twitter... available EXCLUSIVELY from Comcast DSL.
Facebook... available EXCLUSIVELY from Time Warner Cable.
Yeah, that'll never work. - 64705, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3A model based on scare tactics and sensationalist news from what I can see across the pond.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3The News keeps trying to cut cost by firing reporters. We get the same AP News Wire information, with a slight twist and coloring by all the news outlets. There is no real difference in content. Any paper that DOES actually pay reporters, gets the article re-quoted on another site (an aggregator) with enough details that you don't need to visit the provider.
The "Free Market" that gets you FREE News is broken. The only thing "FREE" you get is BS, or someone is supporting the news as a charity service to get the word out --- eventually, however, it will get advertisers and they will eventually influence the content.
I don't think there is an easy way out of this problem. We will have to go to a pay model like Consumer Reports for GOOD NEWS, or the government will have to subsidize the way the BBC does. The problem is, that people who think the Free Market can get them un-spun and valuable news, are exactly the people who don't think they are being manipulated. They probably also think there is a terrorists threat, that Swine Flu is a great menace, and that they are free thinkers.
If you want to be a FREE Thinker, someone has to pay for it. - AlterLite, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Not really, the news content has commercials...
- destroyerwi, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3I didn't even have enough patience to sit through that forced ad to read the article.
- 64705, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3I'm the same. I don't mind paying for the electricity to power my toaster but I'll be damned if they trick me into buying the bread too.
- Natnie, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Magazines don't have Adblock either
- Elranzer, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2There are risks. That lovely little letter from your ISP you sometimes might get, and the possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the RI/MPAA.
- lorddazzer, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Fookin' Prawns...
- anonymous10, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Yeah yeah, I read the title wrong. But I could claim that 55.5% won't pay because they don't want it, and the remainder just get it for free anyway.
- badqat, on 10/26/2009, -3/+5No. I would not pay for the online content or access.
- areyouserial, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Paid content online will only work at the top and the bottom of the food chain. At the top they provide news that people need, like financial news, and at the bottom there are independent journalists covering niches small enough not to capture constant mainstream attention but large enough to capture an audience for their books. Anyone in the middle who's playing the general interest news game will give away content in an effort to topple the leader in readership, then use that credibility to justify restricting access to content at some level.
- PSPDS, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2Its really gonna start to get interesting on how people are gonna make money in this business the next couple years
- LarkStew, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1@ Secrity:
Those sponsored posts are what I meant when I said inline ads, didn't mean to cause confusion ;-) - Deguello, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2The old for profit models do not work, will not work, and cannot work in the online world. IF your service has value to me, then I will consume it, and I will visit your advertisers. I will not pay to read articles or news. Never. Make that 55.6%.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is