Re: A Radical Thesis

Recently, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> spake:
>
> On 04/12/96, "Martha Luehrmann" <Martha_Luehrmann[_at_]macmail2.lbl.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> the creator's compensation comes from the ability to sell the
> >> user's interest.
> > What the heck does that mean?>
>
> I did not mean to be cryptic, and that is. Sorry.
>
> First there are many different models, and my gneralization
> is only applicable to some.
>
> Currently a frequent model is that the author's compenstaion
> is basically a small bit of the ditribution/production
 <FX: snip, snip>
> In other words, suppose that William Safire and Anthony
> Lewis decide that rather than distributing their columns by
> the NYT they will distribute them by email, or by a web
> site. It will be inconvenient for them to ask everybody to
> send their two pennies a month.

But will it be inconvenient? Mr Gates reckons to get rich (again) by making it economic to charge users/readers as little as a penny a time. For once, I agree with Mr Gates on his model of the system.

Also, the CARL Corporation has signed a deal with the National Writers' Union which allows contributors to be fairly recompensed for individual uses. Granted, this is on a higher-cost distribution: but reducing the transaction costs, and the access charges, are matters for competition...

> However, Safire and lewis, because they are well known and
> often read will have something to sell to 3rd parties--their
> readers interst. They can sell advertising (directly by
> including a link on their webiste) or they can sell their
> subscriber list (Safire's presumablt to the Republicans,
> Lewis to the Denorcrats <g>).

No-one yet knows whether or how advertising will work in the medium. This model implies, at first blush, that people will only be able to support themselves as independent creators given that:

1. They can sell themselves to advertising agencies, or hire an agent so to do;
2. They're already famous enough to do so

This implies an awful long time spent producing the work (commentary, music, un-named-whizzy-new-medium) as a sparetime  activity. Me, I'd rather take my chances that people will pay directly for my work, and let the agencies come to me when they're ready...

And... consider the possibilities for innovative software being "rented" on the net. An excellent idea in principle. I buy a license for a basic, small, swift spreadsheetdescendant  program. If I find a sudden need to solve thirdorder  differential equations, I download and "rent" the module for $few. On your model, I don't pay the programmers, but instead the model starts energetically trying to sell me a Sun^2 workstation or the whole of Mathematica Release 19, presumably not letting me do any work until it reckons I've paid enough attention.

Thanks, But No Thanks!

Mike

Mike Holderness
<mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk> Received on Tue Apr 16 1996 - 13:44:20 GMT