8 ms·

How much did you pay to read the blog post?

by hexis 17y ago

froo 17y ago
How much did you pay to read the blog post? Ok, well seeing as you're trying to be a smartass, let me answer you. Using rough calculations... I use my internet for about 6 hours a day x 30 days a month so I get approximately 180 hours of internet usage a month or 10800 minutes. Since that blog post took me about 2 minutes to read and I pay $170 a month for my internet access (which includes telephone line rental), then I guess it cost me about 2 cents to read that blog post. So his 2 cents, cost me 2 cents. Now we've gotten semantics out of the way, let me answer you properly. Seth uses his blog as a marketing tool to both sell his books and to promote his "Seth Godin" brand which helps him get his consulting and workshop gigs too. So yes, he might give away snippets of information on his blog, but make no mistake, he doesn't do it free - he has other outcomes in mind.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  he doesn't do it free - he has other outcomes in mind How is this hypocritical, though? Anybody publishing anything for free has access to these benefits.
  - froo 17y ago
    How is this hypocritical, though? It is hypocritical because on one hand, he's saying that those professors should create content of the same scope that you would find in a text book and put it online for free - meanwhile he's got adverts for his books just to the left of that exact same statement. Don't write text books, give away all your knowledge, but it doesn't apply to his books? If he gave his books away as ebooks and just worked on the assumption that his income is coming from consulting/speaking then I wouldn't have a problem, since he's not, he's a hypocrite.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      but it doesn't apply to his books? You just read that post on his blog, where he gives away his knowledge for free every day. That he also sells books is irrelevant, because there is nothing stopping professors from selling books too. You seem to have the idea that the ideas of giving away and selling knowledge are mutually exclusive, even when the thing you're complaining about is evidience that they are not.
      - froo 17y ago
        Did you even read the same post that I did? He's complaining about text books... He complains about the price and then later advocates that professors should give away their content online for free instead of in textbooks. Yet he does exactly the same thing, has content in his books that he charges for. I'm not suggesting that the price for textbooks isn't outrageous, While doing my double degree I felt like I was getting ripped off left and right, but the fact is - saying "give away your content instead of writing a book" and not doing it yourself makes you a hypocrite. Sure, Seth blogs about his ideas, but generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. I'll also note that his blog posts often allude to ideas that he covers in his actual books (eg, the Guy #3 post talks about Tribes and guess what one of the title of his books is called?). So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct.
        GHFigs 17y ago
        "give away your content instead of writing a book" You've used quotation marks, but what you've but between them is not a quote. As I said before, giving away knowledge and selling knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe that textbooks are the only possible way to sell knowledge, there is no way to read the post as suggesting that selling knowledge instead of giving it away is verboten. generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them". Secondly, nowhere doe he suggest giving away textbooks for free. You're grossly distorting the text by implying that. That he describes assigning a textbook as "academic malpractice" strongly indicates that his position is not that textbooks should be freely available. So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct. How is that relevant? I never disagreed with that assertion. Nor would I, because it is transparently obvious. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?
- hexis 17y ago
  "Ok, well seeing as you're trying to be a smartass..." I think you misspelled "Socratic".

How much did you pay to read the blog post?

by hexis 17y ago

How much did you pay to read the blog post?

froo 17y ago

How much did you pay to read the blog post? Ok, well seeing as you're trying to be a smartass, let me answer you. Using rough calculations... I use my internet for about 6 hours a day x 30 days a month so I get approximately 180 hours of internet usage a month or 10800 minutes. Since that blog post took me about 2 minutes to read and I pay $170 a month for my internet access (which includes telephone line rental), then I guess it cost me about 2 cents to read that blog post. So his 2 cents, cost me 2 cents. Now we've gotten semantics out of the way, let me answer you properly. Seth uses his blog as a marketing tool to both sell his books and to promote his "Seth Godin" brand which helps him get his consulting and workshop gigs too. So yes, he might give away snippets of information on his blog, but make no mistake, he doesn't do it free - he has other outcomes in mind.

GHFigs 17y ago
he doesn't do it free - he has other outcomes in mind How is this hypocritical, though? Anybody publishing anything for free has access to these benefits.
- froo 17y ago
  How is this hypocritical, though? It is hypocritical because on one hand, he's saying that those professors should create content of the same scope that you would find in a text book and put it online for free - meanwhile he's got adverts for his books just to the left of that exact same statement. Don't write text books, give away all your knowledge, but it doesn't apply to his books? If he gave his books away as ebooks and just worked on the assumption that his income is coming from consulting/speaking then I wouldn't have a problem, since he's not, he's a hypocrite.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    but it doesn't apply to his books? You just read that post on his blog, where he gives away his knowledge for free every day. That he also sells books is irrelevant, because there is nothing stopping professors from selling books too. You seem to have the idea that the ideas of giving away and selling knowledge are mutually exclusive, even when the thing you're complaining about is evidience that they are not.
    - froo 17y ago
      Did you even read the same post that I did? He's complaining about text books... He complains about the price and then later advocates that professors should give away their content online for free instead of in textbooks. Yet he does exactly the same thing, has content in his books that he charges for. I'm not suggesting that the price for textbooks isn't outrageous, While doing my double degree I felt like I was getting ripped off left and right, but the fact is - saying "give away your content instead of writing a book" and not doing it yourself makes you a hypocrite. Sure, Seth blogs about his ideas, but generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. I'll also note that his blog posts often allude to ideas that he covers in his actual books (eg, the Guy #3 post talks about Tribes and guess what one of the title of his books is called?). So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        "give away your content instead of writing a book" You've used quotation marks, but what you've but between them is not a quote. As I said before, giving away knowledge and selling knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Unless you believe that textbooks are the only possible way to sell knowledge, there is no way to read the post as suggesting that selling knowledge instead of giving it away is verboten. generally they are collection of random thoughts, not complete contextual subjects laid out in concise logical order with examples... like a textbook. First of all, they are not "random", they are the same thing he suggests professors spend their time on and publish for free: "pages or chapterettes or even entire chapters on topics that matter to them". Secondly, nowhere doe he suggest giving away textbooks for free. You're grossly distorting the text by implying that. That he describes assigning a textbook as "academic malpractice" strongly indicates that his position is not that textbooks should be freely available. So my assertion that his blog is a marketing channel for his paid-for content is correct. How is that relevant? I never disagreed with that assertion. Nor would I, because it is transparently obvious. Are you saying that selling books is inherently hypocritical?
hexis 17y ago
"Ok, well seeing as you're trying to be a smartass..." I think you misspelled "Socratic".