I have this PSFK thing in my rss, but a lot of the “posts” have a $ sign next to them and you only get to read them if your a paid subscriber. Is anyone paying for that? Consider this post:
It’s been a while since I last saw a really good Google Maps mash-up, but Jason over at Leo Burnetts Toronto pointed this rather nice site out to us.
More…
clicking on more of course gets you the subscription info… Seriously, is stuff like that which is likely to get reported through hundreds of blogs is worth paying for. Wouldn’t PSFK generate more value and equity by using its resources to create a great blog that that could generate revenue in other ways?
Is there anyone that can persuade me it’s worth $300 a year so subscribe to this?
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Who’s $300?
I’m overwhelmed with content; there seems little need to pay for more.
If anything, I’d pay for the WSJ (and that’s a long long way from happening) since they often have definitive content that isn’t available elsewhwere.
I wonder what impact the pay-content-wall has on the rest of the PSFK’s brand.
Agreed with the content overload, even good content overload. The problem I guess with a paid blog is you get less interaction and conversation (I would imagine). I see a paid post, but there is no comments or trackbacks that might make the post richer and more interesting.
I also don’t see the point in paying for content at the moment, I can’t cope with the stuff I currently receive via RSS, nevermind sites like the WSJ. And I can’t complain about not reading enough good content. Simply providing content isn’t a future proof business model. It’s the intelligent agregators and the opinion leaders that might be able to charge for their services / opinions.
I remember the first time that I read that the Times was putting up a walled garden… and charging for content, I thought, “Yeah right!” especially when you can (most times) simply find the content online, or at least the choice tid-bits posted to various blogs. HOWEVER, they are making money (They being the Times).
I love PSFK but refuse to pay for content on principal (lol) that is not to say that there isn’t content worth paying for… But I think that content has more to do with “an experience” than simply “flat” content.
An example: A few months ago I was speaking to a Marketing Manger from The New Yorker and I was explaining why I rarely bought the magazine anymore… not because I didn’t still love it, but because the “experience” of waiting for a magazine and spending a day or even a week savoring the articles and words just didn’t exist for me anymore, because I can now consume information faster via Blogs and my Feed Reader.
Now if the New Yorker offered content with an experience attached to it online, say perhaps an author I love offers a new piece simply for the “special section” along with exclusive video of his reading some additional parts of his material….AND most importantly, I knew I could DEPEND on them for this type of content (ie: there is value) over the long haul; then I would pay for the content.
What do you think, are monetized in need of an “Experience” to make more money?
That should be: “What do you think, are monetized sites in need of an “Experience” to make more money?