Comments on: ‘Long Tail’ Author Anderson: Free Doesn’t Work As A Standalone Business Model

By: Rogue Leveling Guide

Rogue Leveling Guide — Sat, 16 May 2009 10:25:59 +0000

Someone above was saying how you can't advertise on Facebook and reach your target audience…I don't think he knows about Facebook's new advertising program.

It's very targeted, you can choose to market to males and females of different age brackets and different specified interests.

By: Allen Weiss

Allen Weiss — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:23:28 +0000

What isn't taken into consideration here is that when Anderson gives his book for Free, I bet you need to give him your email address. That isn't Free. You are paying for this with your connect information.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:37:28 +0000

That is right Mike OD. A lot of web publishers and content providers did not get hypnotized by the "free" is always better philosophy. Unfortunately, the VCs and some experts in the media seem to have gotten completely crazy about ads and ad revenues. Give them one more network, this or that “free” schmuckster or something, and they will pump millions into it, even though it makes no sense and no money, doesn't even have any plans to make money. On the other hand, iTunes makes billions, and the same experts will tell you, it is impossible or only by accident – the paid-content model does not and will never work. ???????

By: Mike OD

Mike OD — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:52:44 +0000

Duh, like this is a great revelation. Most of iCopyright's publisher clients have pursued a balanced model of free and paid content. They never bought into the all-free, ad-only model. Most are doing just fine, thank you very much. I doubt Mr. Anderson intends to give his book away for free on the Internet. Bet you will have to buy it.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:43:13 +0000

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Thank God for the latest crisis in advertising! (Too bad, of course, that the crisis had to come, but it seems without it, "the smartest" people in the industry would still claim that "free" that is "ad-supported" model is the perfect solution and nothing else will ever work. Right, Mr. Shirky?)

Finally, thank God we have people and companies like Znak it!, for example, who quietly build content monetization platforms that might turn the Internet around and make it profitable (and safe, clean and fair) for everyone.

By: NoBarter

NoBarter — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:26:13 +0000

Freemium makes no sense at all. What does make sense is the complete reverse. Make the service free to users who contribute comments, reviews, content. Make the service paid subscription or paid for all those who now really want to get in but are too lazy to contribute (which is probably 95% of users).

Then, once there is actually sufficient traffic to justify it – go free with an ad-supported model. At this point, you really need recognition/reputation tools for your contributors – plus you've got to be loving them in other ways.

But anyway, that's the cookie cutter recipe for monetization/buzz building. But BTW – it's got to be something people care about…if not – then it shouldn't be a business to begin with

BTW – one of the best executions is in a business that has been overshadowed by the stupid/criminal behavior of its founder. TheEroticReview's model should be studied by more – just get beyond that it's Dave Elms and his tawdry behavior.

By: Wells Baum

Wells Baum — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:04:13 +0000

People generally think of the Internet as a free platform. Free information, free music, free movies, free books, and free communication. Anything that can be digitized will be free, or so it's assumed to some degree.

Obviously both good and bad things have emerged from excessive Internet freedom, the good: educational, banking, and travel and the bad: distraction, piracy, and the emergence of the non-professional.

I think it's the non professionals, e.g. the bloggers, user musicians and actors, that are contributing the most to this concept of free content on the web. This is because for the first time marketing and distribution to the world costs nothing. Free user content gives people the misconception that legitimate content should also be free. The debate evolves though when authors who run blogs like Seth Godin put out books for free or Nine Inch Nails gives whole albums away for free.

The Internet is then a mix of both legitimate and user content, paid and unpaid. We shouldn't claim it unfair when content producers want to sell legitimate content and make money. At the same time, we should expect small tastes of free content here and there to get us excited. The right answer for content owners is in giving away product to generate sales of a bigger package.

By: shosho

shosho — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:53:58 +0000

I am glad I found this post while using google. It gave me the information I needed.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:39:27 +0000

What's strange is that the same industry that eyes big companies for exit also seem to enjoy tearing down their models (or watching them fall apart). They write about it, talk about it, devote panels to it as if it's a triumph…. yet, it's their exit…

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:35:38 +0000

He's confusing free with deflationary trends. Give us examples of what he is talking about. It's absurd to generalize so quickly. It seems his work is based on anectodal evidence.
For the longest time, businesses have given away (or reduced margins on) some products to sell others.
This free period is temporary. Once all the free-giving companies go out of business, then we'll be done with that stupid thinking. If there is value provided, value has to exchanged, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly.