Barry Diller: Free content is a “myth”
Saturday, July 25th, 2009This comment from Barry Diller, the CEO-Chairman of IAC/InterActiveCorp, appeared on Bloomberg yesterday:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeenjkAYFIE
Last month, he was interviewed in Businessweek on the same topic:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia/archives/2009/06/barry_diller_an.html
Here’s his corporate biography and in interesting business exchange interview with him from Joost:
http://iac.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20&item=17
What’s interesting is that there is a genuine schism between coders and technologists who — especially when they launch their platforms — believe in the free+open model because they’re aware people don’t want to pay over and above the monthly ISP charges they already have to contend with, and the corporate managers who — charged with the responsibility of making the platform profitable — recognize that “free” is unsustainable and serves to accelerate a platform’s demise. Someone has to pay to keep the platform operational. It can’t keep coming out of investors’ resources because they invest to earn a profit, not to finance users.
So what we have is a situation where a technology starts off being open and free and then it migrates towards closed gate community and charges to continue membership of that community.
The challenge, in terms of strategy, is in pinpointing the timing, the geography and the motivation of when free flips to fee. WHEN and WHERE can the platform’s users bear the costs and what USP would make that content chargeable?
It’s helpful that someone as experienced as Barry Diller refers to free content as a “myth”. The reality is that no content is free. All online content we access incurs a TIME COST. Now since, according to the adage, “Time is money,” it could be argued that just as users should perhaps pay to watch content produced by a third party, so should THEY BE PAID (either in US$ or in-kind) if they write reviews and commentary about that content wherein the reviews and commentary adds to the contextualization, propagation or interest traction of that content.
How do we framework the reciprocity of payment exchange in a paid content model that’s equitable to the company and the users alike? That’s what we need to know!
The fact is that neither free or paid arguments have completely won me over. There are merits in both and areas of improvement needed for both, and I’m informed about some of the considerations involved.
Over three years ago, a leading wi-fi entrepreneur sent me his business plan to sanity check. I turned the document, which he and his managers had taken several years to put together, around in about 8 hours. Within the week, I’d managed to persuade him to stop subsidizing his router and, instead, charging for it at a more appropriate price point. At that staget, they’d been subsidizing it for approx 15 months. I understood their “free is good” philosophy but also had an awareness of how potential investors would view this subsidization if it over-stepped its welcome: unnecessary cash burn and delaying break-even. Neither of these are liked by investors, btw. That’s one example of me advocating that, “Users should pay for the product.”
Now, in 2009, it’s interesting to hear Tom Gruber say that Siri will be a “free” service application. In a sense, it’s become acceptable for a tech giant like Google to release free services and applications (on browser, over wi-fi, via Android etc.) as a means of continuous engagement with core users, over more diverse digital terrains. However, for start-ups, offering the application or service for free with almost no business model to monetize user interest and engagement can be risky.
It also raises some questions about the changing dynamics of what we consider to be capitalism and the roles and rewards systems of participants in the Knowledge Hive.
There are several Semantic plays out there currently operating a “free” model whereby the structured data is being built with bottoms-up methodology. In other words, the content is actually being filtered, tagged and sanity-checked by unpaid users.
When the paid model arrives to the Semantic versions of online content, will this mean that they’ll be paying to access the very content they’re responsible for collating, structuring, contributing and making sense of?
If so, this means they will have paid TWICE OVER:
(1.) time cost of contributing content.
(2.) access cost once the paid model is implemented.
What measures can companies put in place so that ordinary users who’ve contributed substantial and significant content are not subject to access costs? How can they be retrospectively paid for their content? Who is / are the arbiter(s) of the value of their content? Where would they go for arbitration of disputes regarding the payment or otherwise for their content?
See? It’s not simply a case of User X will pay US$A for each ZMB content they access, US$B for content they download, etc. What if the content includes reviews and commentary User X has previously contributed or is continuing to play a significant part in propagating (aka marketing and PR)? Why shouldn’t they be paid for these marketing and PR services?
Answer: they should be paid.
************************************************************************************************************
[I've been figuring this out for Project ART, btw. My potential answer is certainly not derived from the media sector, alone. The time-old media model of subscriptions, advertising and transactions needs a good dose of re-imagining, imo. It needs twaining with the way other sectors generate revenues and rewards participants in the process.]
















