where content, technology and people meet. (SM) Publishing and content technology executives use Shore to measure and understand their markets and competitors, define marketing strategies and implement successful content products and services using Shore's highly actionable insights into vendors, institutions, individuals and virtual communities.
COMMENTARY: INDEX
CONTENTBLOGGER
INDUSTRY EVENTS
CONTENT NATION

Read ShoreLines, our complimentary email newsletter.

weekly   daily
Sample issue
RECENT ENTRIES
WEBLOGS: ARCHIVES
 
 
ContentBlogger is the 2007 SIIA CODiE Award Winner for Best Media Blog
COMMENTARY:

Insights and headlines from Shore analysts on trends in enterprise and media content markets.
Subscribe to our XML feed (?) or add to: MyYahoo  Bloglines  Rojo  NewsGator Online  CNET Newsburst
 
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Holy smokes! I've been waiting for an economist to chime in on the open access debate and the issue of whether digital content should be priced at marginal cost. All I can say is: be careful what you ask for! The FT article by Eli Noam, a professor of economics and finance at Columbia University paints a bleak picture of the direction the media industry is headed. While I agree with many of Professor Noam's points about the problems for content producers if they are forced by competitive pressure to sell their goods at marginal cost, which for digital goods approaches zero, I don't think that disaster looms for all media companies. The biggest hole in his argument relates to the commingling of broadcast media with exclusive (or user-selected) media. Noam says that "Online publishers cannot charge their readers, except for a few premium providers such as the FT." And states further that "Newspaper prices barely cover the physical cost of paper and delivery; the content is thrown in for free." Well, newspapers have been surviving on the "free" content model for decades. They rely on another source of revenue: advertising. Almost any media outlet designed to reach a large audience with diverse and divergent interests traditionally has depended on advertising revenue, largely due to the difficulties in asking users to pay for a large collection of content when only a small portion is highly valued by them.

However, exclusive content, or what Noam calls premium content, has traditionally been priced and packaged to appeal to a smaller, more homogeneous audience. It's with exclusive content that Noam's argument stands up to scrutiny. Why should exclusive content that is highly valued by a well-defined segment of the population, and only of peripheral value to the vast majority, be forced to price at marginal cost and absorb all production costs even if it results in a loss? It shouldn't. In the media industry, value pricing is essential. With broadcast media, the value has to be set for some low common denominator. But with exclusive media, the value should be reflected in the price.

By Janice - posted at 6:05 PM
permanent link to this entry        bookmark this entry:  AddThis Social Bookmark Button
  0 comments (click to view or to add your own) 
Comments:  Post a Comment
 

To top of page To Top of Page

   
shorename.gif (1190 bytes)
[HOME] [US] [SERVICES] [COMMENTARY] [RESEARCH] [COMMUNITY] [PRESS] [CONTACT]
Copyright © 1997-2008 Shore Communications Inc.  All Rights Reserved - Click Here to Read Terms of Use
Corporate Privacy Policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?