4 ms·

Media is becoming more fragmented as the internet disrupts traditional TV broadcasting. We'll see more networks and independent shows similar to TWiST. Most o

Media is becoming more fragmented as the internet disrupts traditional TV broadcasting. We'll see more networks and independent shows similar to TWiST. Most of these people and shows will have relatively small audiences that don't yield enough eyeballs and ears for brands to care. Monetizing with standard, low-CPM will return pennies (a la low traffic blogs using Adsense). Donations from a core fan base might be the best approach for these small majority content producers.

pstack 16y ago
Do you really feel that it is a superior idea to give it away for free and rely on donations, though? Both options are essentially the same thing, but one says that you're doing it for free and hoping someone will toss you a buck here or there while the other is establishing a value on your content and saying that if you want it, you can pay for it like you pay for anything else. It seems like one says "I do this for a living and I should get paid for what I do for a living" while the other seems more "this is a hobby, but it'd be nice if I could make a living out of it". I know one is far more common than the other, today, but I also know that there is almost nobody actually making a really good living with the free model or even the advertising model (with a couple exceptions). I also know that I consume a lot of content and would consume almost none of it if I had to pay $5-$10/mo for it. But many may. It almost seems ripe for the Netflix model to step in, where you pay a flat monthly fee for a whole catalog of content and then the creators get paid as a result. That that I'd actually want that sort of a giant singular wall between myself and accessible podcasts and video streams, mind you. But I'm surprised it hasn't been pushed, yet.
- rrhoover 16y ago
  That's an interesting concept. What if there was a Netflix for independent content producers (bloggers, video shows, podcasts, etc.)? I could see this model work in the tech scene, where there are early adopters and tons of content.

pstack 16y ago

Do you really feel that it is a superior idea to give it away for free and rely on donations, though? Both options are essentially the same thing, but one says that you're doing it for free and hoping someone will toss you a buck here or there while the other is establishing a value on your content and saying that if you want it, you can pay for it like you pay for anything else. It seems like one says "I do this for a living and I should get paid for what I do for a living" while the other seems more "this is a hobby, but it'd be nice if I could make a living out of it". I know one is far more common than the other, today, but I also know that there is almost nobody actually making a really good living with the free model or even the advertising model (with a couple exceptions). I also know that I consume a lot of content and would consume almost none of it if I had to pay $5-$10/mo for it. But many may. It almost seems ripe for the Netflix model to step in, where you pay a flat monthly fee for a whole catalog of content and then the creators get paid as a result. That that I'd actually want that sort of a giant singular wall between myself and accessible podcasts and video streams, mind you. But I'm surprised it hasn't been pushed, yet.

rrhoover 16y ago
That's an interesting concept. What if there was a Netflix for independent content producers (bloggers, video shows, podcasts, etc.)? I could see this model work in the tech scene, where there are early adopters and tons of content.