I came across a site called www.creativebase.com (in this week's issue of NMA). Users pay $2000 to get access to the international creative community. You'd really want to get in with that lot if you're paying $2k... but I expect they know what they're up to.

I'd also have to point out that some of the most comemrcially succesful internet sites are those whose content you pay for. PORNOGRAHY pays. Is this content real value for money? or are punters being targetted when they are at their most vulnerable? Either way it is a useful reminder that if you deliver a service that people cannot stand not having... then you can charge for it.

On a mobile note, KPN in Holland charge their users for access to their premium WAP services. I think this will be a general trend. Users have to be reminded that quality services come at a price, and very few can be self-sustaining through advertising.

The mobile world is interesting because the scope for generating revenue from advertising is so limited that it will become clearer, sooner, that users will have to pay for services.

Free content is dead. Long live free content.

On 9:34:33 17 November 2000 ashley wrote:
>The announcement of the closure of the UK operations of
>TheStreet.com has once again raised the thorny issue of
>whether an online business model whereby users pay for
>content can succeed.
>
>Like many online content sites, TheStreet.com grappled
>with its business model. The company changed its initial
>strategy of charging subscription fees in favour of a
>hybrid model, where readers pay only for premium content.
>
>The only example people seem to be able to cite where a
>'users-pay-for-content' model has worked is The Wall
>Street Journal's web site, WSJ.com, which recently gained
>500,000 paid subscribers.
>
>There is an interesting struggle going on in the market at
>the moment to try and work out who should be paying for
>quality content. It is generally accepted that good
>content is in short supply and is vital to creating a
>compelling online proposition. At the same time it seems
>to be that users are not prepared to pay for this content
>and yet it is expensive to create. So who should pay? The
>sites which want the content are unwilling to pay much as
>they can't see real ROI in terms of the often measly ad
>revenue uplift that the content might create. And once
>they've set users expectations with the new content they
>have then tied themselves into having to continue to pay
>for it and update it.
>
>Many of the points of content distribution not only don't
>want to pay for the content, they are asking the content
>creators to pay them to be on their sites! Portals, for
>example, would argue that a presence on their sites give
>the content creators an exposure and distribution that
>they simply could not get any other way and so they should
>pay for it. And they do have a point.
>
>Equally, broadcasters are increasinly requiring production
>companies to provide details of what interactive content
>they are planning to support their TV proposals with. Yet
>the broadcasters are not eager to pay for this content -
>they see very little pay off from this content and they
>themselves are under increasing financial pressure as
>audiences, channels and routes to market multiply and
>fragment. But isn't this unfair on the production
>companies? They too are cash-strapped and are now being
>asked to provide extra content for free.
>
>Broadband is further opening up this can of worms.
>Creating broadband content is typically a lot more
>expensive than 'traditional' web content but where does
>the extra money to pay for this come from? The consumer
>isn't likely to want to pay more even if the content is
>more compelling: they are prepared to pay for the speed of
>connectivity but not the content itself. Can we ever
>expect to see a situation where users pay a monthly
>subscription fee to access broadband web content in the
>same way that TV viewers are happy to pay for Sky or other
>TV content providers?
>
>In the short term, decisions on who should pay who come
>down to a balance of negotiating power - who is more
>desparate for what the other party has?
>
>Longer term there will have to be consolidation in the
>industry (i.e. there will be fewer, bigger sources of
>quality information who can afford to pay their content
>providers) and more of a shift towards people being
>prepared to pay for quality content online: less so
>consumers, but professionals certainly. With so much
>information out there and so little time people are
>increasingly looking to a few trusted sources to cut
>through the noise and give them what they need quickly and
>reliably.
>
>This would mean that big brand media players should
>survive (the likes of FT.com, Reuters, Dow Jones) and more
>specialist premium content plays also stand a chance if
>they can keep a lid on their costs.
>
>Does anyone know of examples of successful online
>'pay-for-content' sites? Anyone know of any research which
>looks into whether people are more or less likely to pay
>for content in the future?
>
>Ashley