3 ms·
"I think you're totally right: unlimited and immediate access to music is just better." Better for users, but not for producers. Also, Matt has made the point
by JesseAldridge 18y ago
"I think you're totally right: unlimited and immediate access to music is just better."
Better for users, but not for producers.
Also, Matt has made the point that the vast majority of people are unwilling to donate when they don't have to.
- ivankirigin 18y agoFree content is often free because people understand the the increased eyes and ears on content will make up for it being free. Only a fraction of your audience will pay, but your audience is probably orders of magnitude larger if free vs. gated by a pay wall.
- whacked_new 18y agoDoesn't this assume the profit you gain from kN users donating X/k price on average, given free content, equals or exceeds N users paying X price, or something like that? Of course this is a gross simplification, but how else does it justify making something free and expecting increased exposure to make the operation sustainable? IIRC Wikipedia is not looking good financially, and there is probably nothing with more eyeballs at the moment. I'm guessing you have thought though this situation much more thoroughly, and maybe have data on it too; otherwise, I'd be very surprised if things work out so ideally.
- DougBTX 18y ago> the increased eyes and ears on content Those eyes and ears were supposed to be looking at ads, where more impressions equals a happier advertiser. It isn't obvious how that extends to donation-ware, when everyone can just move on to the next free source of music.