photo via Donald McMichael
While I never going into depth about the finds, I do encourage you check them out if they sound interesting.
In this post about survivability of the New York Time’s (NYT) paywall Chris Saad comes at it from a unique angle. In almost all of the cases laid out, both pro and con, the core premise was that people – that’s you and I – are interested in and derive value from the content. We Chris’ position is that people have historically paid for the medium not the content. This was so because people perceived the medium to be scarce, a limited resource. The point is that we live in a world of abundance where digital space is virtually infinite.
Scarcity now is on the consumption side – content providers have to fight for attention. A total flip in the prevailing paradigm on the last 100 years.
If true, it’s kind of a King has no clothes moment for many media and entertainment concerns.
I’m still of the school that content does matter. The question that I’m currently pondering is: ‘What’s the right balance of interesting content and delivery vehicle (experience) that drives the highest financial return?’
What do you think?
To review the remaining article visit my my main blog.