Today brings good news for content creators. It has to do with a magazine that used to be an ugly duckling but is now the swan and a fruit company that has managed to appease the leeches and mongooses.
Slate magazine is making money. And they are making money with online advertising revenues.
Since I can remember, there has always been the promise of content being a revenue source on the web. Up until this morning, the only content that was making any money is the kind with naked people doing yoga.
I don't see this as the big thing (the bubble is gone, long live the bubble), after all Salon has to hold a bake sale every six months just to keep the electricity on, but it is encouraging to see that publishers now have hope. If one publisher can find a way to black then certainly others can do the same. And perhaps even more content will make it's way back the web.
Later this morning Apple is rumored to debut new applications that will make it possible for users to download music legally. Finally everyone (distributors, creators, lawyers) have found a new method of distributing copywritten material via the net that they can all agree on.
How soon before Microsoft or some Windows based application provider can make the same announcement? Who knows but certainly once Apple has effectively demonstrated the process and the technology, something will be done. No one can just ignore the vast majority of Windows users.
Before I have the reach for the independent publisher/producer flame retardant, keep in mind that more content brings more readers, listeners and maybe someday viewers. While you may not like it, commercial content helps grow the pie.
And today that pie is much bigger and sweeter.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I don't frequent the Apple rumor sites, but I have read a couple of news articles about Apple's new service. What I don't get is how this service is going to be any different than eMusic, Launch, et al? Most of the sites out now are based on a subscription model that require a monthly fee -- the higher the fee, the more streams and # of tracks you can burn to a CD. As I understand it, most of these sites find it hard to attract and keep customers...who wants to pay a monthly fee? If Apple uses the subscription model, I don't see them having much success. One thing is for sure, the service will be tightly integrated into the OS which will make it easier to use, and give Apple the first crack at a Mac users' wallets. I'm sure Mac users will be more likely to use Apple's new service instead of going to eMusic et al. It sounds like what Microsoft did with IE...integrate the browser into the OS so that Windows users might not consider other browers. Does this mean that Apple is turning evil?
I'm using iTunes 4 and browsing through the library. Whatever Apple did, it certainly doesn't feel evil and way better than any music store shopping experience I have ever had.
Why can't publishers do something like this?
What are you trying to say??? I'm so confused. Content to .mp3 downloads - huh?
I just came from the Apple music store and I'm impressed that they aren't doing this on a subscription basis. This is something I would used...only if I had a Mac. Hopefully others will follow Apple's model.
What I have said is this, content creators (non-porn mind you) are finally getting paid via methods of online distribution. As these models improve the number of content providers will grow.
Lots of content sites make money, just not so many via advertising. I've seen it stated that only the top 1% of all traffic'd sites have a chance to live by advertising alone. Don't know if it's true, but it's certainly something to think about.
Boysen, I'd like to know what other sites are making money and are operating in the black.
Well, the old standy WSJ has been making money for some time.
http://www.onlinepublishingnews.com/htm/n20000129b.htm
I would guess that the NYTimes online product was also in the black. Other informational services like Hoovers and Edgar I believe are profitable. Smaller niche market sites like Sound Mind Investing continue to make money. And then there's always the gambling and pornography, but you were probably only thinking of the content publishers.
Expect for NYT, the sites you mention are subscription based as I recall. Even the NYT has a premium subscription service though I have yet to read how much revenue comes from that source.
Still, good point.