Barry Diller Sez: "Pay" Internet The Norm In 5 Years

From ZD Net:

"The days of the free Internet will draw to a close over the next five years, according to the chairman and chief executive of IAC, the interactive services company which operates a collection of more than 30 Internet sites which produce $1.5 billion a year in revenue.

The only missing link, according to Barry Diller, who cut his teeth building up over-the-air and cable TV networks: a good billing system, akin to Amazon’s “one-click” button or the Apple iPhone’s slick downloading of paid applications.

“I absolutely believe the Internet is passing from its free days into a paid system. Inevitably, I promise you, it will be paid,” Diller said in a keynote discussion opening up the Advertising 2.0 conference held at his company’s futuristic glass building alongside the Hudson River in Manhattan. “Not every single thing, but anything of value.""

I called it in my post "How Mainstream Media Gets Its Groove Back" back in February -- with the same timetable!

"Within five years, I think everything I've just wrote will come to pass. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it will or will not encourage creativity. I'm just saying this is likely the scenario. And if the mainstream media does not start thinking along these lines, or if they think they can survive long-term by providing nothing but free online content (when the market for paper shrinks more every day), they will collapse."

Diller went on to say:

"The fact that content and services on the Internet so far have been largely supplied for no charge is “an accident of historical moment that will be corrected,” he said, in an era of “creative chaos” that will span the next three to five years."

How The Mainstream Media Gets Its Groove Back

"I get email. Some of them ask for cartoons. Like this one:

I wish to add your cartoon to a Powerpoint presentation.

OK. I write back:

Hey, that's great that you would like to use my cartoon. My fee is $20 per image, per presentation. I accept Paypal and credit cards.

Oops. That's not at all what this person had in mind:

Unfortunately I shall not use your cartoon if it means paying for it. I thought I would just try and do things by the copyright book. Thanks anyway."

-- cartoonist Mike Lynch

We seem to be turning into a society of "free" media. Music, movies, comics, news -- we are increasingly expecting to get these things, via Internet, for free. Like webcomics. I can't picture an arrangement in which significant masses of people pay for webcomics -- unless you got the best 2% of all webcomics on one site. Other than that, I don't see people dropping money for them, unless they make donations. It's not about quality. It's just that people expect to get these things for free. We've been trained this way.

Some say that advertising revenue will make the money. I am telling you from experience within the online media industry -- unless you have a HUGELY popular site/blog/content, you will not be able to support a company on this revenue. Hell, even Facebook is having problems doing this.

Then there is the idea that loyal fans of a webcomic or site will send in enough donations to support it. I believe that can happen, but can you support your family on it? Maybe, maybe not. Still not a solution for a media company.

Then there is the selling of hard-copies and various memorabilia. And/or utilizing the intellectual property in your free webcomic to inspire ventures in other media. These are awesome things. If they happen.

But what can the various traditional media outlets out there do as an overall game plan? What can the freelance cartoonist/comic book person do? How do you make money? Real money? Game-plan sort of money? Health insurance sort of money? Raising a child sort of money? Saving for retirement sort of money? Supporting five floors of employees sort of money?

Yes, it looks like the switch is on from paper to digital. But are people willing to pay for this digital media? For the most part -- no. People are not willing to pay for it, unless you give them a damn good reason to.

Damn Good Reasons To:

1) If I was DC or Marvel (or any other media company), I'd pinpoint what the top 5% webcomics are. Offer those web cartoonists competitive exclusive distribution deals that includes a health insurance component. Then make a subscription-based site offset by sales of hard copies and merchandise.

2) Want to compete with Wikipedia with a subscription-based model? Have a damn good online encyclopedia/reference center, with the top names in academics, punditry, etc. Stress the authoritativeness of your reference site. If I was giving advice to a company like Time Warner, News Corp, Microsoft, etc on how to make this model work, this authoritative aspect would have to be stressed -- because it's the only real selling point they would have versus a free model.

3) Authoritative vs. "Amateur" is the general crux of the mainstream media companies's (and professional writers's/cartoonists's/artists's) bid for pay-based content. It is the only way. I'm not defining "amateur." I'm not saying looking at things with this dichotomy is "right." I'm just playing devil's advocate and trending this out. Look at all the media you consume online -- news, TV, comics, blogs, etc. Now, figure out how much would you actually pay for if you had to.

4) The media companies are going to push "Authoritative" vs. "Amateur" within two years. Look for an all-out assault on the authority of blogs that are not connected with one media group or another. Look for the top-of-the-top independent blogs to get bought up by media companies. Look for an all-out assault on the credibility of Wikipedia.

5) Important point: in order for this plan by mainstream media to work, it is crucial that most of the popular webcomics, blogs, sites, news sources, social networks, services, etc be absorbed into the corporation. That may all sound as scary as shit. But it's likely that it's the way things are going to go down. The fire under everybody's asses in this economy will help it along.

6) And of course there is the whole net neutrality thingie-wingie. Look for the corporations to help move this along, to their advantage. Look for cable TV-like "packages" of web content that you pay for monthly.

Within five years, I think everything I've just wrote will come to pass. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it will or will not encourage creativity. I'm just saying this is likely the scenario. And if the mainstream media does not start thinking along these lines, or if they think they can survive long-term by providing nothing but free online content (when the market for paper shrinks more every day), they will collapse. And then we will be more a nation of independent contractors, mini-media moguls. Micro-payments, donations, T-shirts. Which may or may not be better.

And please don't think that when I talk about the best blogs being bought up by corporations, I think I should be on that list. I'm realistic. Believe me, if I have thought through this topic to the extent I have on this post, I have seen what my "place" is in this overall landscape. To keep the personal OS blog, sure. But I do not think this blog -- in its current form -- has the broad (excuse pun) appeal to be useful to a big media concern.

Now, the Occasional Superheroine character itself might -- and if I choose to do more with that, something good might come out of it. And I think I can transfer my blogging skills to a blog with more of a broad reach -- either by spearheading it or working behind-the-scenes.

The OS is not journalism. The OS is just a doorway to talk to you all. And that's enough.

But the idea of the mid-level to low-level blog on a certain topic that will GENERATE TONS OF AD REVENUE and so forth -- no.

The idea of a web-based concern that has lots of overhead but is generating no income but one day it will sometime in the future -- no.

Me, I'm looking into taking some solid journalism courses and brushing up on my grammar. Because in order to compete in online media within two years, that's what you're going to need.

***Comments now closed to prevent the inevitable pissing match that I don't have the time for. If you don't agree with me, fine. I'm totally okay with us meeting up in two years -- hell, ONE year -- and compare notes. I look forward to it.

The End Of The Unlimited Internet?

Relevant links:

New York Times: "Charging By The Byte To Curb Internet Traffic"

"Some people use the Internet simply to check e-mail and look up phone numbers. Others are online all day, downloading big video and music files.

For years, both kinds of Web surfers have paid the same price for access. But now three of the country’s largest Internet service providers are threatening to clamp down on their most active subscribers by placing monthly limits on their online activity."

"If my internet is metered, I don't want ads wasting my bandwith."

"Time Warner Metering"

The impact on the relatively young video streaming industry will be huge if customers are charged by the amount of bandwith used. From the NYT article:

"Casual Internet users who merely send e-mail messages, check movie times and read the news are not likely to exceed the caps. But people who watch television shows on Hulu.com, rent movies on iTunes or play the multiplayer game Halo on Xbox may start to exceed the limits — and millions of people are already doing those things."

This will have an added benefit to old-model media, because people will be less likely to download books, TV shows, music, and movies -- legally or illegally.

Then there is the idea that metered usage will bring us back full-circle to the early days of AOL & dial-up. Is this a step backward?

Finally, people who have their wi-fi leeched from other people will be charged for bandwith they didn't use.

But, for me the larger issue is that if the internet providers succeed in getting the metering established, we will be one step closer to having to pay for "packages" of Internet content the same way we pay for cable channel packages.

The Future Of The Internet And You

enjoy this while you can

First off, please do not beat me over the head with the Internet equivalent of a cricket bat for bringing this topic/article up -- I don't agree with all of it, but I do think it raises some timely questions.

The writer of this post makes the point that "geeks" (techies, early-adopters, the Internet savvy, etc) have created a culture of "free" where anyone can get anything online for free. In the process, the creators get nothing, get swindled, etc:

"The “free” Internet costs Americans around $10,000, give or take depending on quality, by the time you add up the computer, the software, the monitor, the laptop, the cell phone, and a year’s worth of connection services. But “free culture” demands that we will not pay one penny for a piece of digital art.

The Internet has become the new weapon of imperialists. Today’s imperialists, also known as “The Geeks” have been very successful at securing their economic domination of the world by making non-technical talent and skills, like the ability to draw, worth nothing on the Internet (and even beyond), even when the finished product is far from worthless."

The conversation quickly turns to webcomics, the example being used African webcomics creators. The poster writes:

"There. I’ve just helped myself to African comics. It was fast and easy thanks (sincerely) to the geeks who created the technology, and also free thanks (sarcastically) to geeks who created the free movement and who continue to labor overtime on blogs, Twitter, FriendFeed and so on, to proselytize an Internet culture that will not tolerate the creation of an economic channel that could pay these creators for the use of their art here on my blog, even though I want to pay."

And this all dovetails into an issue very much on the minds of the Web 2.0 social media field in which I work -- in the future, will we have to pay for all this? Will we have to pay for a subscription to Twitter, will we have to pay for access to Internet "portals" based on Google (now Google/Yahoo), MSN, etc?

Is This The Future Of The Internet?

And will we have to pay for webcomics?

I think the day they completely crack down on the illegal downloading and stop making these social media sites and online newspapers/etc. free, the day they make you pay for Internet access the way you do for cable and make it a federal crime to download unauthorized material -- people are going to f**king riot. Literally.

And then several days after that, we are going to settle into our daily routines and pay the fees. Sure, a permanent underground of "geek" rebels will be formed, handing out flyers at public meeting places and throwing pies at Bill Gates. Perhaps the Rebellion will be far more real and serious than that. But --


The day will come when we will have to pay for all this stuff. It is coming anyway. I don't know how much we will have to pay for these Internet services, and I don't know how extensive it will be. And I'm not saying it's right. And I don't agree with all of the points made in the referenced article.

But, I read a heavy volume of industry news every day for my job, and I'm telling you -- this day is coming. I attended a function of the top media movers and shakers about three months ago (not cuz I'm awesome, but because somebody cancelled), and that was the top topic. "How do we monetize this?" This wasn't a bunch of pundits, or what have you. These were the heads of media companies.

How will this specifically effect webcomics creators? The cream will rise to the top. Today's hot webcomics creators will be tomorrow's mainstream darlings, pulling in far more money than they have ever dreamed. And they will either be savvy enough to maintain competitive websites, or they (more likely) will be "attached" to one large company or another. 'Cause when a lot of this pay-for-Internet-portal-access stuff comes down, when the gates begin to close, their expenses will rise to the point where they will have to have some big company back them up -- or at least create a big company of their own.

DC wasn't stupid in creating Zuda. Nor were they being "nefarious." They understood the concept that creators -- regardless of the medium -- had to get paid. They also (and this is purely conjecture) understood that the models for media distribution both in print and online are changing. We can argue about the finer points of contracts, rights, etc., all day. And I'm not suggesting independent webcomics creators need or even should go to Zuda.

But, I am saying that the free content that we enjoy now -- and the free services -- will not stay that way forever. Right now is, in many ways, a renaissance. A time to experiment. And if you depend on the Internet for your income -- whether you're a webcomicker, an Internet marketer, a blogger, an e-commerce businessperson, a writer for an online publication -- you need to trend these things out. You need to do your research, keep up with things, and learn to anticipate. You absolutely have to.

Always happy to be your little ray of sunshine

41% Of Large Companies Paying Staffers To Read Employee Email

Just another dose of paranoia to send you along into your lunchtime hour...


A recent Forrester Research study indicated the following:

• 41 percent of companies with 20,000 or more employees are paying staffers to read/analyze the contents of employees' outbound e-mail.
• 44 percent of the companies investigated an e-mail leak of confidential data in the past year.
• Specifically, companies were worried about employees leaking confidential information -- "spoilers," if you will -- on blogs, YouTube, and other forms of social media.
• 11 percent of the companies disciplined workers for improper posting on message boards and blogs.

This type of stuff is pretty standard, by the way -- the only twist is adding the blogs and message boards into the mix.

(via CNET)

Penny Arcade Uses Flamebait From Critic As Promotional Material

The creators of the webcomic Penny Arcade used flamebait from one of their harshest critics, Denis Duckfat, in the promotions for their new game on Xbox Live. This unusual promotional strategy flies in the face of contemporary wisdom -- that one should push the gushing glowing quotes, not stuff like:

"Penny Arcade sucks and is unfunny..."

Personally, I think it's brilliant. And inspirational.

Just think of it:

THE CRITICS HATE OCCASIONAL SUPERHEROINE:

"She Cries Like A Girl! Ha-Ha!"
--The Artist Formerly Known As Nelson Muntz

"I deserved that magazine article more than that untalented slag. How dare she. In fact, I am so nonplussed by that banal creature that I think I shall blog about her all the time just to emphasize how unimportant she is."
--Dick K. Philip

"Occasional Superheroine provides me with a platform with which to express my deeply repressed hatred of strong women by hiding it behind a bunch of manufactured outrage over bullshit. For that...I am strangely grateful. Thank you, Occasional Superheroine."
--Theodore "Teddy Bear" Parsley Jr.

"My growing resentment of her is slowly supplanting my previous backhanded compliments."
--Lancha Elsechester

"Nice girls don't use that word."
--Mom

Thoughts on Internet Discourse

The last couple of weeks, I've been in dialogues with various people about the frustrations they face dealing with what I call "message board superstars" -- people who relentlessly pick, extend, and must end with the last laugh drawn-out negative threads on forums and the comments section on blogs. I always advise, "don't let it bother you," but then I have to deal with the same bullshit.

If I had to describe the negative energy you feel when dealing with this sort of shit -- it's not healthy.

Can you actually have a rational conversation with these people? No.

Will obscure continuity issues be brought up? Possibly. Probably.

Can you win if you answer them? No.

Can you win if you shut the comments down? No.

Can you win if you just walk away from the thread/comments in question? Probably your best bet.

And then the person you had the tangle with will, somewhere, get in their last word, and wait with baited breath for you to do something -- anything! If you can do anything to recognize their existence. An angry response? Great! More fuel! A link to their blog? Great way to get the Technorati authority up! Just...please respond. Respond with negative energy. Keep fueling it. Keep fueling it.

The thread pages keep adding up. The number of comments go through the roof, though most is just a non-dialogue between two people.

Somewhere, the actual topic in question gets buried in a pile of LOLs, and fan neurosis.

Keep fueling it! More response! More attention!

I saw this with the "Dan DiDio must die" thing, and, while I appreciated those who defended me, the whole thing scared the hell out of me. Then I saw it again with the "One More Day" thing and the personal attacks on Quesada.

Keep fueling it! More attention! The loudest one wins! (and when all else fails, make fun of grammatical errors).

And then I get disgusted by all of it and I say, "I'm going to be really positive for now on, and I'm not going to perpetuate negative energy on my site."

But that's when you have the Zen test of having a somebody go completely batshit on you on another board or blog. And here is the test: what do you do?

You get caught up in the negativity. And you spin more negativity onto your site, because it's infectious.

And then you reach the Oprah point. (Not that I'm comparing myself with Oprah, I just have a little blog that gushes about World War Hulk and Fred Hembeck)

Years ago, when the sensationalistic talk-show scene was in full bloom, she said -- I'm not doing this crap anymore. I'm just going to work on positive issues on my show.

Would the ratings still hold up?

If the type of mentality that drives people to say epithets against Joe Quesada on a public message board keeps up, or drives a forum user to get personally involved with a freelancer's life, will the easy sociability between the professionals and the fans keep up?

Or will the comment sections on these blogs, one-by-one, get shut off? Will freelancers stop interfacing with fans online? Will there be bodyguards/bouncers for DiDio & Quesada and whatever writer is getting hated-on at the moment at the cons?

This used to only happen with "letters to the editor." You could file those away.

We used to get angry letters where they'd write all in caps and tell us we were full of shit. They were so cute. They would tell us we should die because Hal Jordan was not Green Lantern. We'd tape them on our doors. The scarier ones we'd file away. Some we would forward to upper management because they had better resources to deal with it than we did.

Then, there were the conversations and debates you got into at your local comic store. They ended when you got home. Now, via all your lovely devices, you have at least two or three ways to extend that debate out into your home. And you can slowly roast on the coals all day, if you'd like.

I'm not a saint, and I've made my share of incendiary posts. But I'm just observing that the whole dark side of Internet discourse seems to be one that builds and builds, building gigantic feuds that spill into personal lives, building enmity, creating ever more obsessive fans, then these clusters of obsessive fans who all hate or love the same things. The Internet is largely not like that, but I wonder if it has to change eventually to deal with this obsessive element.

The Internet fosters an openness, but I wonder if, by virtue of this very openness completely taken advantage of, it will eventually react by becoming more and more private.

And I wonder if, when the openness of professional artists and writers and editors are taken advantage of, will they and this industry become more and more private as a result.