Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles
that have appeared in past issues.
I assume that trend will continue for many other web
sites offering "free advice".
Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".
I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
think a better approach would have been to leave the
existing articles free and offer another page with
"chargeable articles".
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> > "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> > > In article Swingman
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this
> > model is
> > > > almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my
pocket
> > and a
> > > > hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ...
> > >
> > > Except there's no "B" side...
> > >
> > > :-(
> >
> > Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98
for
> > two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal.
>
> Jeez, now you got me wondering what my parents used to pay for early
> 78s. I can't even recall what I paid for my original "Rock Around The
> Clock", which probably is a sign of age. I bought that thing twice,
> because I wore the first one out. Somehow, $.89 seems right, because I
> seem to recall 45s being a tad cheaper when they first came out, but
> fairly hateful to keep stacked and playing on most dual speed players.
Roughly 1955/56, and at the age of 12/13, I frequented "Robbie's Record
Shop" and paid .49 cents per 45 record. First two I bought were Nervous
Norvus' "Transfusion" and The Penguin's "Earth Angel".
It was indeed a slippery slope ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
But where is Tauton looking to get it revenue from? I suspect the
revenue from books, videos and CD is what they are looking for from
subscribers not page reprints.
Will charging for page reprints keep one from buying a book on the same
site?
Not sure...time will tell. I am in the software business and
understand e-commerce pretty well. I suspect this is an experiment
based on the model created by other publications. They will know
pretty soon via their Web stats and revenues if it is working or not.
I'd be interested to know their "abandon rate" for the Web site and
shopping cart.
NTrout
Swingman wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> > In article Swingman
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this
> model is
> > > almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket
> and a
> > > hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ...
> >
> > Except there's no "B" side...
> >
> > :-(
>
> Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98 for
> two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal.
Jeez, now you got me wondering what my parents used to pay for early
78s. I can't even recall what I paid for my original "Rock Around The
Clock", which probably is a sign of age. I bought that thing twice,
because I wore the first one out. Somehow, $.89 seems right, because I
seem to recall 45s being a tad cheaper when they first came out, but
fairly hateful to keep stacked and playing on most dual speed players.
Patriarch wrote:
> However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
> viable, ....
*NOT* true. There are a sh*tload of 'viable' commercial subscription services
out there on the 'net. Several _big_ ones:
Medline
Dunn & Bradstreet
Lexis/Nexis
OAG
TRW credit reporting
In addition, there are many _thousands_ of 'niche' operations, particularly in
the realm of stock/commodities/futures/options investement advisory services
that provide fee-based services -- either flat-rate subscription or on a
pay-per-use basis.
The folks that "make money" with Internet 'pay sites' are those who have a
product that is valuable in a specialized market. They also tend to be
'nearly invisible' *outside* of the market that they serve.
In article
<[email protected]>, Pat
Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
> advice to charging people for advice on older articles
> that have appeared in past issues.
>
> I assume that trend will continue for many other web
> sites offering "free advice".
>
> Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
> articles that were "free".
>
> I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
> think a better approach would have been to leave the
> existing articles free and offer another page with
> "chargeable articles".
>
We can mostly blame the people on eBay that harvest this free
information and burn it to a CD or copy it to an eBook that they offer
for sale, charging for the information is one way to stop these
leeches. More and more sites with free plans are now charging to
download them for this very reason. My site has been copied verbatim so
many times that I have just decided to ignore it, eBay gives lip
service to the problem, but that is about all they do. I have an
example on my site where boat plans are sold, what the customer gets is
a photocopied sheet of paper with the instructions to go to my free
plan site.
--
http://absolutelyfreeplans.com
In article <[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think I should have to pay for an album with
> just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled
> with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her
> fans.
Hence the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store, where you can buy
single tracks for $0.99 each.
A great model IMO.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <290620050821438722%[email protected]>, Frank Campbell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I have an
> example on my site where boat plans are sold, what the customer gets is
> a photocopied sheet of paper with the instructions to go to my free
> plan site.
And you haven't picked up on this business model, Frank?
;-)
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Hax
Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
> If there is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that?
Why shouldn't the cost reflect the value of the information, rather
than simply the cost of distribution?
I work for a publisher (have done for most of my career, various
companies. I've been with this one for 11 years). The cost of printing
and distributing our publications are a minority of the actual costs of
running our business.
f the FWW articles aren't worth the money TO YOU, don't buy them. Plain
and simple. Value for money.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is
> almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a
> hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ...
Except there's no "B" side...
:-(
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
Patriarch wrote:
> However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
> viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the
> Wall Street Journal...
- Consumer Reports Online
- Pay per use online automotive manufacturer's service info sites, like
techinfo.toyota.com and Subaru's version of the same, are huge success
stories! They take the place of multi-hundred dollar manuals.
- Financial research sites, like Morningstar
- Newspaper sites that allow access to articles from yesterday's paper
and earlier
- Dating services
- Alldata
I can go on, and on....
FWW's online content is typically good enough that it may very well be
viable.
Barry
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> Hence the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store, where you can buy
> single tracks for $0.99 each.
>
> A great model IMO.
You betcha ... as a longtime musician, with a recording studio and a small
record label among other business interests, and therefore a vested, if
somewhat small, interest in the economics of the music business, I agree
totally.
I've spent far more for single song music purchases _online_ since Apple and
iPod than I ever would have buying albums at a traditional record store at
my age
When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is
almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a
hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely
to the same desires that built the industry in the first place.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
"Pat Barber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
> advice to charging people for advice on older articles
> that have appeared in past issues.
>
> I assume that trend will continue for many other web
> sites offering "free advice".
>
> Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
> articles that were "free".
>
> I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
> think a better approach would have been to leave the
> existing articles free and offer another page with
> "chargeable articles".
FWIW Pat, I agree completely -BUT, as you said, everybody needs to make a
buck.
Vic
I'm not "riled up" about it. If I have a beef with a company that needs
addressing, I pick up the phone and discuss my concerns with the proper
individual. If all I have is a general "bitch" like we all have about
HD, then I might "rant" about the problem here, because there's no
percentage in expecting HD to listen to the same old complaints that
they've heard for years from numerous customers. I'm not sure that all
public complainants really WANT the offending company to change it's
ways. If they did, wouldn't they call the company and discuss it calmly
and intelligently? Works for me! I'm not much for lynch mob mentality,
either... :)
Dave
BobS wrote:
> I would disagree - who would you consider is a better audience than us? Get
> all us wood-dorkers all riled up, point 'em in the right direction and
> before ya know it, FWW is caving in......
>
> Won't happen but hey, it's the thought that counts....
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the
>>proper audience; FWW staff is. :)
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>BobS wrote:
>>
>>>Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
>>>others of their new policy?
>>>
>>>
>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
>>>>remedy your concerns here, Pat.
>>>
>>>
>
B a r r y says...
> Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?
>
> Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
> the web should be free.
>
> * Servers aren't free.
> * High-speed data feeds aren't free.
> * Web designers expect a salary.
> * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.
>
> You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
> for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.
The problem isn't that they charge to download these little tidbits, it
is how much they charge. $3.50 for one article? Where did they get
that number?
Roy Smith says...
> How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some
> combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork.
>
> For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially
> zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down
> as experience dictates.
Well, if you ask me, that price has nowhere to go but down. They must
not want to make any sales. When a year of subscription costs $35,
$3.50 per article is an insult to my intelligence.
Patriarch says...
> I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples
> would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.
>
> I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)
>
> The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's
> good.
>
> Patriarch
The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want
the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or
ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of
their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than
that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or
magazines with the tools we have now. They need to accept the medium
and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then
somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there
is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I
just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at
subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription
rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy
them?
Prometheus says...
> music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost
> always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are
> investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry
> to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing
> and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that
> they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher
> than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm
> talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but
> not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth
> investment needed to download them.)
I know that MP3 is a loss format, but the reduction in sound quality
isn't as great as is generally believed. For the better sampling rates,
the differences are almost insignificant. I have a bunch I have
resampled to about 3 minutes per megabyte for a microscopic MP3 player
and it is still hard to fault the sound quality. Besides, does anybody
really believe that the music industry clowns care about sound quality
considering the quality of music that is produced?
Swingman says...
> A good argument can be made that many engineers and producers today care
> more about "sound" quality than they do about "song" quality. IOW, and when
> all is said and done, most don't seem to understand that we'd rather listen
> to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad song.
For proof just turn on the radio. Half of the stations are playing
oldies recorded in 8 track studios.
"Hax Planx" wrote in message
> Prometheus says...
>
> > music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost
> > always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are
> > investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry
> > to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing
> > and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that
> > they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher
> > than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm
> > talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but
> > not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth
> > investment needed to download them.)
>
> I know that MP3 is a loss format, but the reduction in sound quality
> isn't as great as is generally believed. For the better sampling rates,
> the differences are almost insignificant. I have a bunch I have
> resampled to about 3 minutes per megabyte for a microscopic MP3 player
> and it is still hard to fault the sound quality.
As, among other things, a not-yet-retired recording engineer/producer, with
well over 100 published albums to my credit, many with names you would
recognize, and a commercial studio owner to boot (www.hsound.com), I agree
wholeheartedly, and without reservation, with your statement.
Despite owning a studio full of high tech gear, almost 100% of my listening
for pleasure is over, or through, an iPod full of mp3's.
> Besides, does anybody
> really believe that the music industry clowns care about sound quality
> considering the quality of music that is produced?
A good argument can be made that many engineers and producers today care
more about "sound" quality than they do about "song" quality. IOW, and when
all is said and done, most don't seem to understand that we'd rather listen
to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad song.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> In article Swingman
> wrote:
>
> > When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this
model is
> > almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket
and a
> > hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ...
>
> Except there's no "B" side...
>
> :-(
Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98 for
two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote in news:GZdwe.1042634
[email protected]:
> Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
> advice to charging people for advice on older articles
> that have appeared in past issues.
>
> I assume that trend will continue for many other web
> sites offering "free advice".
>
> Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
> articles that were "free".
>
> I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
> think a better approach would have been to leave the
> existing articles free and offer another page with
> "chargeable articles".
>
Two thoughts:
I paid for the original publications, saved most of them, and tossed or
took to the wood club the ones I thought excess to my needs. But they
were not free.
My local library has back issues of most of the Taunton magazines. I
can use them at no charge, but I must go to the library, and retrieve
them from the archives. The library is supported with our tax dollars,
but is not free.
And a bonus thought: Taunton evidently believes that there is value
beyond that which they can extract from advertisers on their site. This
experiment will yield its results in due time. I have no predictions.
However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the
Wall Street Journal...
Vote with your dollars.
Patriarch
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Patriarch wrote:
>
>> However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved
>> economically viable, ....
>
> *NOT* true. There are a sh*tload of 'viable' commercial subscription
> services out there on the 'net. Several _big_ ones:
> Medline
> Dunn & Bradstreet
> Lexis/Nexis
> OAG
> TRW credit reporting
>
> In addition, there are many _thousands_ of 'niche' operations,
> particularly in the realm of stock/commodities/futures/options
> investement advisory services that provide fee-based services --
> either flat-rate subscription or on a pay-per-use basis.
>
> The folks that "make money" with Internet 'pay sites' are those who
> have a product that is valuable in a specialized market. They also
> tend to be 'nearly invisible' *outside* of the market that they serve.
>
I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples
would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.
I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)
The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's
good.
Patriarch
Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
>
> I know that MP3 is a loss format, but the reduction in sound quality
> isn't as great as is generally believed. For the better sampling rates,
> the differences are almost insignificant. I have a bunch I have
> resampled to about 3 minutes per megabyte for a microscopic MP3 player
> and it is still hard to fault the sound quality. Besides, does anybody
> really believe that the music industry clowns care about sound quality
> considering the quality of music that is produced?
>
And for years, the real 'audio tweaks' refused to even listen to CDs,
claiming the sound was bastardised.
Given the processing that occurs with most sound, even in 'live' venues,
it's no wonder that most 'audio product' bears as much resemblance to live,
acoustic music as mdf does to a quality hardwood.
Patriarch,
marveling once more at the power of 'threading' on the wReck...
Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Swingman says...
>
>> A good argument can be made that many engineers and producers today
>> care more about "sound" quality than they do about "song" quality.
>> IOW, and when all is said and done, most don't seem to understand
>> that we'd rather listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a
>> good recording of a bad song.
>
> For proof just turn on the radio. Half of the stations are playing
> oldies recorded in 8 track studios.
>
I suspect that we prefer the music of our youth, by and large.
Patriarch
Robatoy wrote:
> I have, however, a completely different outlook on that issue when it
> comes to music. I don't think I should have to pay for an album with
> just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled
> with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her
> fans.
I agree, and I'm a musician. <G> One of my favorite examples was
paying $75 in the late eighties to see Bruce Springsteen play an HOUR of
covers as the second half of the "Born in the USA" tour, while leaving
favorites like "Jungleland" out of the set. Damn, I wanted my money
back! I can see very good cover bands for the cost of a beer locally.
I can also extend that thinking to the film industry.
Paid song downloads will quickly change the music industry. Especially
since a small act doesn't even really NEED a label!
Barry
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:56:46 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And for years, the real 'audio tweaks' refused to even listen to CDs,
>claiming the sound was bastardised.
>
We did a test a few years ago- same recording (classical) on CD and
LP, on the same higher end, but not the ultra high end mega $ stuff,
in the same room (fairly large, open 2 story space). I could hear the
difference between the 2, and yes, the LP was better.
Didn't matter so much with the rock and roll selections.
Renata
-snip-
>
>Patriarch,
>marveling once more at the power of 'threading' on the wReck...
I would disagree - who would you consider is a better audience than us? Get
all us wood-dorkers all riled up, point 'em in the right direction and
before ya know it, FWW is caving in......
Won't happen but hey, it's the thought that counts....
Bob S.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the
> proper audience; FWW staff is. :)
>
> Dave
>
> BobS wrote:
>> Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
>> others of their new policy?
>>
>>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
>>>remedy your concerns here, Pat.
>>
>>
In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is
> almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a
> hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely
> to the same desires that built the industry in the first place.
As a kid, all my money went into a juke-box as I didn't have a record
player till I was 17. What I did have, very early on, was a tube-powered
portable radio. It had a massive lantern-sized battery plus a C battery
for the filament. That thing kept me broke as well. On a good day I
could listen to England, Germany or the pirate-ship radio stations like
Caroline and Veronica. Nothing cured my teen-aged angst like a little
harmony from the Everly Brothers.
I'm still a sucker for a good bit of harmonizing, like Hollies, Peter
and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, Mamas & The Papas, CSNY, Beatles (As soon
as I hit 'post' I'll think of a few more.......)
In article <[email protected]>,
B a r r y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat Barber wrote:
>
> >
> > Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
> > articles that were "free".
>
> Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?
>
> Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
> the web should be free.
>
> * Servers aren't free.
> * High-speed data feeds aren't free.
> * Web designers expect a salary.
> * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.
>
> You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
> for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.
Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too...
even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not
unreasonable IMHO.
uh-oh...
I have, however, a completely different outlook on that issue when it
comes to music. I don't think I should have to pay for an album with
just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled
with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her
fans. Record companies are mostly blood-sucking leeches who squeeze
their 'talents' dry and then toss them aside like a used tissue.
I'll stick to the indy's whenever I can and gladly pay for the privilege
to listen to music when I know the money is going to the artist without
the bulk of it ending up in the pockets of fat-cat corporate assholes.
I realize that this ideology is nigh impossible to sustain
completely......but dammit, I'm trying.
*steps off soap-box*
*NOMEX=ON*
In article <[email protected]>,
Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:53:33 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too...
> >even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not
> >unreasonable IMHO.
>
> I kind of like Discover magazine's setup- subscribers to the magazine
> can enter the information from their mailing label, and that entitles
> you to access all the articles on the site. Might work for FWW, might
> not, but it works for me- and it's an incentive to get the
> subscription rather than nabbing things peicemeal.
Yup, exactly. Consumers Reports does it that way as well. I can live
with that. Discover is one of the finest mags on the planet..I just eat
that sucker up and look forwards to its arrival.
Pat Barber wrote:
>
> Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
> articles that were "free".
Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?
Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
the web should be free.
* Servers aren't free.
* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
* Web designers expect a salary.
* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.
You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.
"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the
> web should be free.
> You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
> for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.
There is an incredible amount of free information on the WWW as it should
be. Commercial enterprises though, have no obligation to give away
information that they are in the business of selling. Consumer Reports and
Cook's Illustrated don't give it away.
Looking to move to a new city? There are all sorts of information on the
town of your desires and that is a good thing. Most appliance manufacturers
make information available for installation, owner's manuals, comparisons of
models. You can view the new car in your choice of colors.
Unless, like the print magazine, it is advertising supported, I don't see
where any commercial enterprise has an obligation to give stuff away.
Just my opinion.
Ed
did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help
you remedy your concerns here, Pat.
DAve
Pat Barber wrote:
> Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
> advice to charging people for advice on older articles
> that have appeared in past issues.
>
> I assume that trend will continue for many other web
> sites offering "free advice".
>
> Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
> articles that were "free".
>
> I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
> think a better approach would have been to leave the
> existing articles free and offer another page with
> "chargeable articles".
>
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:56:46 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Given the processing that occurs with most sound, even in 'live' venues,
>it's no wonder that most 'audio product' bears as much resemblance to live,
>acoustic music as mdf does to a quality hardwood.
Right.
But remember that the room affects even heavily processed, amplified
music. As a live sound guy, I still like "barns" for hard rock and
heavy metal, but hate it for other types of music, for instance, swing
or bluegrass. <G> For example, the slap back of a perfectly
rectangular room would ruin a zydeco act's day, but somehow enhances a
kick drum / bass vamp in the middle of a metal act's set.
All in all, it's still difficult to capture the "feel" and nuances of
any live venue in a recording, since even different seats may have
different details.
Barry
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:06:38 -0500, Hax Planx
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Prometheus says...
>
>> music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost
>> always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are
>> investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry
>> to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing
>> and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that
>> they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher
>> than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm
>> talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but
>> not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth
>> investment needed to download them.)
>
>I know that MP3 is a loss format, but the reduction in sound quality
>isn't as great as is generally believed. For the better sampling rates,
>the differences are almost insignificant. I have a bunch I have
>resampled to about 3 minutes per megabyte for a microscopic MP3 player
>and it is still hard to fault the sound quality. Besides, does anybody
>really believe that the music industry clowns care about sound quality
>considering the quality of music that is produced?
Could be I just have bad mp3's, then- or maybe the cds I burned them
to are wearing out. I just know that in the car, I get some really
irriating buzzing in the treble ranges when I play mp3s, but that
buzzing is not there with commerical cds. Off the computer and
through the surround sound, it's not quite as noticable, but it's
still there.
As far as the quality goes, I have no idea what is passing for pop
music these days- I mainly listen to jazz and jump blues from smaller
labels, and they really do seem to care about the quality of the
product. I like to think the artists are getting a decent cut from
those smaller labels too, though that may just be naive.
"Hax Planx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Roy Smith says...
>
> > How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some
> > combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork.
> >
> > For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are
essentially
> > zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or
down
> > as experience dictates.
>
> Well, if you ask me, that price has nowhere to go but down. They must
> not want to make any sales. When a year of subscription costs $35,
> $3.50 per article is an insult to my intelligence.
I might guess that the articles are aimed at people who aren't likely to
subscribe, but would like access to a small number of articles. The buyer
doesn't have to purchase a copy at the newsstand (USD7.99) and FWW gets
$3.50, most of which goes right to the bottom line.
todd
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:26:51 GMT, B a r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Pat Barber wrote:
>
>>
>> Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
>> articles that were "free".
>
>Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?
>
>Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
>the web should be free.
>
>* Servers aren't free.
>* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
>* Web designers expect a salary.
>* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.
>
>You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
> for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.
You left out that the people who produce the information like to get
paid for it as well. Welcome to the "entitlement generation" who think
everything of value should be free (to them) and that some nebulous
entity (the corporate "they") should pay for it.
Information costs money. Full Stop.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Having been in the "business" of computers for
a little over 30 years I understand those costs
more than you can imagine.
The "web" as a viable commercial market remains a
mystery for most who are trying. While many companies
are having great success with retail sites, others
are not.
B a r r y wrote:
> Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?
>
> Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
> the web should be free.
>
> * Servers aren't free.
> * High-speed data feeds aren't free.
> * Web designers expect a salary.
> * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.
>
> You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
> for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.
Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem isn't that they charge to download these little tidbits, it
> is how much they charge. $3.50 for one article? Where did they get
> that number?
How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some
combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork.
For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially
zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down
as experience dictates.
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:53:33 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too...
>even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not
>unreasonable IMHO.
I kind of like Discover magazine's setup- subscribers to the magazine
can enter the information from their mailing label, and that entitles
you to access all the articles on the site. Might work for FWW, might
not, but it works for me- and it's an incentive to get the
subscription rather than nabbing things peicemeal.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:25:46 -0500, Hax Planx
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Patriarch says...
>
>> I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples
>> would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.
>>
>> I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)
>>
>> The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's
>> good.
>>
>> Patriarch
>
>The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want
>the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or
>ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of
>their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than
>that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or
>magazines with the tools we have now.
]
Several years ago, I was a member of an organization that spent almost
all of it's annual budget protecting copyrights it held the rights to.
When asked, the executive officer stated bluntly that it was to keep
the texts unchanged- it had nothing to do with making money. That may
or may not have been true, and it may not be the same case with the
music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost
always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are
investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry
to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing
and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that
they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher
than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm
talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but
not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth
investment needed to download them.)
> They need to accept the medium
>and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then
>somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there
>is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I
>just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at
>subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription
>rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy
>them?
As far as magazines go, I think you're onto something. I'd be willing
to pay subscription price for a good electronic version of certain
magazines. Music is another story altogether- even with the
popularity of iPods and the like, I still prefer getting a master copy
on an actual physical object.
Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
others of their new policy?
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
> remedy your concerns here, Pat.
Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't
the proper audience; FWW staff is. :)
Dave
BobS wrote:
> Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
> others of their new policy?
>
>
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
>>remedy your concerns here, Pat.
>
>
>