3 ms·
First thought after reading this: let's say there is a good overview of markets from a known economist, written in a few hours, vs. a deep look into corruption
by mojuba 11y ago
First thought after reading this: let's say there is a good overview of markets from a known economist, written in a few hours, vs. a deep look into corruption in charities/government/whatever that took many months of research and investigation. Why would these two articles cost the same few dozen of pennies? Wouldn't it devalue more time-consuming work?
Of course you can draw parallels with music. A track with an orchestral recording vs. solo piano recording, or a rock band vs. purely computer electronic music, all cost the same $1/€1/£1. At the same time concert tickets for a fully-blown symphonic orchestra are usually more expensive than that of a piano concert (adjusted to fame/importance, etc.)
Maybe it is not a problem after all. Or maybe it is, time will tell.
- mercer 11y agoFirst off, they don't have to cost the same amount of money. And second, the amount of work/quality affects the reputation of the publication, which in turn affects the amount of people that pay for the article and the price that can be asked for it. On Blendle, I've not paid pennies for articles that seemed interesting but came from low-reputation publications, and I've paid more than a buck for articles that didn't immediately catch my eye, but were published in a top magazine.
- notahacker 11y agoThe known economist would probably point out that the supply of known economists is much smaller than the supply of journalists capable of undertaking a research investigation, not least because known economists have spent a decade or more honing their craft and developing their reputation. Both parties are, as I understand it, free to vary their prices if they think they can earn more at a higher price point.