Content Wants to be Ubiquitous

This Mark Potts post about the upside-down pricing of the WSJ online-only edition got me thinking about the old (well, old in web-years) adage that “information wants to be free…but it also wants to be expensive.”

Maybe this is so obvious that it’s not even worth saying, but that’s rarely stopped me before.  When the the unit production cost of any good approaches zero, what that good really wants to be is ubiquitous.  And information–particularly news– on the web is sui generis in at least two reespects:   regardless of the total production cost of a piece of content, the average unit cost has the potential to be trivial because replication is free.  And unlike any other good I can think of, the marginal unit production cost is exactly equal to the marginal unit distrubution cost, and both approach zero.  It’s hard to imagine that even the most arduous, long-form, Pulitzer-winning series of articles will have an per-unit cost of much above the asymptote–and here’s the perverse thing–if enough people want to read it.   

It’s Say’s Law in reverse:  demand creates its own supply.    The more popular something is, the more of it exists, and the only “cost” in the whole affair is the “lost revenue” which content sources suddenly claim is their birthright.  (Ironically, old newspaper hands used to say that they were happy if they covered the cost of their distribution networks with subscription revs).  But the problem is, online news and the link economy were born as conjoined twins, there is real business danger in trying to separate them.  At the outset, what publisher really knows what will work and what won’t in terms of free vs paid (e.g.. Potts’s example of the WSJ iPhone app)?  Movies, music and books are different, because they were born in a content model, not a media model.  They relied on the link economy for building buzz and sharing enthusiasm (I know I’ll get the music argument here, but it’s settled by now).  And please:  those who keep pointing to the same hackneyed paid content examples–Zagat’s and Consumer Reports–does anybody really want to own those businesses for the next ten years in the face of companies like Yelp!  and BazaarVoice (an AV company)?

There are a lot of departure points for arguments that label paywalls and cartels as acts of futility.   But this one seems like the best:  if you’re in the business of charging money for something that has marginal production and distribution costs of zero, it might be time to find another line of work.  Like, for example, preventing snow melt from running down mountains.


4 Responses to Content Wants to be Ubiquitous

  1. […] Content Wants to be Ubiquitous"It’s Say’s Law in reverse: demand creates its own supply. The more popular something is, the more of it exists, and the only “cost” in the whole affair is the “lost revenue” which content sources suddenly claim is their birthright." […]

  2. Chris says:

    The question it seems to me is: what exactly are you trying to sell. Are you selling advertisers space in a newspaper, readers access to content or something else. The advertising space on the Internet is near infinite and content can be infinitely reproduced at near-zero cost. So what are we selling now?

    I would build on the theory of social objects. Newspapers have always been a social object, something around which a community can gather, discuss and interact. In the old days, that community was largely defined by geography. The Internet today allows me to read English-language Somali news even though I live 10,000 miles away. (Some habits die hard.) Now geography no longer defines community.

    Marketers, like Razorfish, believe social objects are the future of targeted advertising. I think news organizations, if they create their content (social objects) strategically, need to see themselves as gatekeepers to communities. And that needs to go far beyond display advertising.

    I think this idea that newspapers were trading in content, and not something else, is only a recent and misplaced idea.

  3. James d. says:

    I’m wondering if you’re hinting at this thought:: There may be no economy for news on the Web.
    Surely not broad reach. Even in micro-local form, the best one may hope for is certain topics can draw revenue. Certainly, neighborhoods will have trouble, as the advertisers available will be small, and what news is reliably that exciting in a several-block radius?
    Maybe it’s because I’m beaten down working at a newspaper, but I don’t think there’s money left in providing information — and that includes journalism. Not online, on mobile or print. And eventually, people have to ask, why am I bothering to try? Let everyone have their own media, and let us try something else in life.

    • johndthornton says:

      I think that’s directionally the conclusion I’ve come to as well, although I might not word it quite as strongly. I’m sure there are ways to make money in some content niches, and maybe even in some general news markets. But as a venture capitalist, I’d like to invest in really exceptional businesses, and I don’t think these ever will be. That’s why I’m spending a lot of my time investigating non-profit journalism.


      Thanks for the comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: