

People will pay for content - fogus
http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2009/12/does-paul-graham-read-hacker-news.html

======
webwright
Some interesting points. But I think there are some specific reasons why some
ebooks succeed... And why following the same model for news/publishing won't.

I notice the author doesn't have any specific advice how music publishers or
news organizations can follow the ebook model and make gazillions. PG is
talking about mainstream content/media. Pointing out a few scenarios where sad
saps will buy quick-fix content doesn't really help.

This is a linkbait title with a straw man argument and a little ad hominem
sauce drizzled on top. But the story will get tons of upvotes and comments.
Boo, internet.

~~~
dpatru
What I took away from the article is that the "little guy" can make money
selling content. Even though a lot of newspapers and content providers are
suffering because of the internet, there are a lot of people making a lot of
money selling content. So if my goal is to make a comfortable income (up to 5
figures per month), it's definitely possible to do this -- other people are
doing it too.

------
andrewljohnson
Well, I know that the point of the article is not "Does Paul Graham Read
Hacker News?" The point is more "Content is worth money," though it's argued
badly.

But, if you want to know if PG reads Hacker News. Yes, he's a heavy reader and
contributor:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pg>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pg>

He would have to be of course, since he is a moderator.

------
lg
he's talking about selling information that people need to solve some problem,
and pg said in footnote 1 that he's not talking about such information, so
this whole objection is irrelevant.

------
chrischen
> If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or
> music or movies always depended mostly on the format?

No matter what they tell you, all they are ever selling is _convenience_. Buy
the ebook version of the book, you are paying for the rights to get it
digitally, which may or may not offer certain conveniences. Tetris is free on
the internet, but paid on the iPhone, because there is a certain convenience
to getting it on your iPhone that they are offering that you're willing to pay
for.

The trend, what with the internet and wikipedia, is for information to be more
easily acquired. Thus the convenience is becoming harder and harder to sell.

------
niyazpk
The article has some points here and there, but the personal attack on pg was
a bit of sensationalism, without which it would have been HN-worthy.

~~~
BearOfNH
There's always a market (here, an audience) for personal attacks on the
wealthy and successful. It comes with the territory.

For his part, pg is leading by example -- laughing all the way to the bank.

~~~
nopassrecover
Can you elaborate on your last point? The only way I can see pg "laughing all
the way to the bank" is through YCombinator where he has to work and commit
time to develop startups. He makes no money (afaik) from HN or his articles,
except where this boosts his reputation for YC and increases book sales.

------
pg
I think he means "raises the question."

~~~
briansmith
When a specific "incorrect" usage of a phrase becomes--and stays--way more
common than the "correct" usage, it stops being "incorrect." Analogously, we
can correctly use the token "assert" as an identifier in Java 1.0, but not in
Java 1.5.

~~~
pg
Language does change, but empirically these things don't seem to be decided by
simple majorities. "Ain't" has been very common for centuries and is still
seen as a solecism.

The threshold for change seems to be when people who know the correct form opt
not to use it, because it seems too fussy. I would say that's happened now
with trailing prepositions and split infinitives. We aren't near that
threshold yet with "begging the question" though. We may never be, because
it's still needed for its original meaning.

~~~
carbocation
Split infinitives were never wrong to begin with. The farcical objections to
them began in the late 19th century, crested in the 20th, and have subsided in
the 21st. Some modern style guides even recommend them!

~~~
herdrick
I thought the same thing, but Wikipedia reports that although in Old English
some verbs were formed with "to" (I didn't even know that) splitting them was
never done.

~~~
carbocation
It is different. You are talking about an observation made about a prior
iteration of English (descriptive). I am talking about arbitrary rules created
long after the development of the current iteration of English (prescriptive
or, more accurately, proscriptive).

~~~
herdrick
I want to blindly accept that argument but I can't. Those who choose to
casually break the rules of the language need swiftly to firmly be
reprimanded.

~~~
carbocation
+1, sir!

------
fragmede
The author reads pg's statement that "People will pay for information they
think they can make money from." and hears the negative - people /won't/ pay
for information they /can't/ make money from. That setup is then used to
conclude: Buy (other people's) stuff via my Amazon Affiliate link. Feh.

People will pay for content, they just don't know it. But really, what people
is that? The people reading the content, or people reaching out to content
readers. The current foregone conclusion is the latter, and everything-ad
supported is proof of that. The same people paying for AND reading the content
being one in the same is the exception. Consumer Reports, Wall Street Journal
and PBS are the only three that immediately come to mind. Even ESPN, one of
the larger old-and-new media platforms, last I heard few are paying them
directly, most are through third parties a la cable provider Comcast.

------
stse
I think there are two parts to this problem. First, there aren't any content
delivery networks that currently can rival the traditional ones, not from a
publisher perspective at least. Selling content through retailers is still the
best way to reach a lot of customers. Second, don't underestimate the
publishers need for control. That's what they do, they acquire rights to
distribute things and distribute them.

So, what's the solution? Create a content distribution system that is
easy(widespread, user friendly, open?) and let's the publishers control the
distribution, but not necessarily by being involved. Whatever retailers, or
wholesalers, should be a part of this is hard to say. But seems likely.

------
zaidf
Geez, talk about taking a few words a little too literally and blowing it up.

I believe pg was arguing about the _majority_ of newspapers and books that are
struggling to survive with the advent of Internet.

He was looking at the empty majority of the glass. You are looking at the
fraction that isn't empty(ie. parrot book that is selling). That doesn't
change the fact that majority of mainstream newspapers and books are
struggling to survive.

Also, you cite numbers and go all gaga over them without really telling us why
the numbers are relevant or advance your argument. I don't care if Clickbank
has done a billion in sales if, say, the overall industry has shrunk over
time.

------
oconnore
Probably not. Most people have better things to do.

------
johnl
Good question. You would think that competition and ease of entry would bring
down the price of content on a particular subject down to a format level. sort
of a Moore's Law of ebooks. First one in makes out good but not si good over
any length of time.

------
JMiao
to me, his observation is "people will buy stuff they don't really need."
gullibility is an undying human quality that makes many businesses work. the
video professor doesn't keep running infomercials for kicks. somebody's
buying.

------
amih
$1.4Bn divided to 100,000 users of clickbank over 10 years doesn't sound like
a lot to me. If I'm doing my math correctly that's about $100 per month per
average marketer.

And that's just the average - not the median.

------
stevejohnson
This was originally part of a longer article, which I believe was itself
posted to HN. The author merely extracted it in order to reference information
in it more succinctly.

------
rjurney
Pretty sure Paul reads Hacker news, as I've been told I'm wrong wrong wrong a
couple times :)

------
access_denied
Do you know what quality journalism is? I don't, I've never seen any. But I am
willing to pay for a well researched piece about wether Barack Obama smokes in
the White House.

