Also, for teh peanut gallery: Look at paragraph 2: In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If

Also, for teh peanut gallery: Look at paragraph 2: In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more? and paragraph 4: Almost every form of publishing has been organized as if the medium was what they were selling, and the content was irrelevant. Book publishers, for example, set prices based on the cost of producing and distributing books. They treat the words printed in the book the same way a textile manufacturer treats the patterns printed on its fabrics. Consider these two claims: - CLAIM A: "prices don't depend on quality of content" - CLAIM B: "prices depend on manufacturing cost" (=> CLAIM A) ...which claim would you imagine the author to be advancing? "CLAIM A" -- that content quality has nothing to do with pricing? -- or "CLAIM B" -- that 'publishers...set prices based on the cost of [manufacturing]'? If, further, interposed between those paragraphs you saw paragraph 3: A copy of Time costs $5 for 58 pages, or 8.6 cents a page. The Economist costs $7 for 86 pages, or 8.1 cents a page. Better journalism is actually slightly cheaper. ...which claim does that paragraph do more to support? If I've misread the essay I think I can be forgiven for assuming pg attempted to argue that price is set based on cost of manufacture (and not just that 'quality of content does not dictate price').