Sam Lessin, of Drop.Io fame and fortune, has built on top of drop.io (if I had to guess) a service that allows you to charge to send emails. Sam’s a smart guy. One of the few in NY who I can honestly say is well thought out. We’re in a minor disagreement over a very theoretical proposition about the web*- beyond that, he’s a guy I would say to listen to.
He’s using his service to shut down his blog, and is now charging $2.99/month to read his thoughts (his reasoning is here, in case you are curious. It is well worth the read. if you see this Sam, kill the cursing in the URL next time you pull a stunt like that…)
This is, of course, a complicated idea.
On one hand, the internet deserves to be paid- No money, no websites, no content. There is labor going into all of this, you know.
On the other, the very nature of the internet’s structure is that of link to link to link (or item to item to item). Creating walls, while possible, right now seems unnatural.
His choice of email, even more so. It would be one choice to be providing a walled off website, as the provider of said website: You are forcing the user to engage with you on your grounds.
However, choosing to engage beyond the fold, into their email inboxes, means choosing to engage with them on their terms.
The internet doesn’t provide the freedom to get rid of power structures when it comes to terms of engagement. This choice, to send out emails, and let the user handle at will, puts Sam (and others) in a weak position:
Is the value of any of these emails worth the price?
Interestingly, one of the critical ways to measure if the emails are valuable is
1) if there aren’t tons of the same repeating message (aka lots of paid emails that say pretty much the same thing from either the same or different people)
2)if there is a critical mass of people to recieve the emails
3)That critical mass of people is still too small to pass some sort of tipping point where your email would be forwarded to oblivion.
Why these choices in particular:
Much like paper media, information only gets expensive when you have a group that needs some information, and that group is too small to be supported by advertising. Remember, Vogue watchers watch how thick the September issue is: Most of the content is not Content, it is Ads. Meanwhile, you bet that some of those readers (how many, I don’t know) probably do subscribe to whatever the equivalent to “Immunology Today! for Lower NY.” Meanwhile, in contrast, the cost of a print version of a law journal (1 issue) can run about 70 dollars.
(1 is just about oversaturation of your market, too many and why should I listen that advice is everywhere, after all. I might give a pass at certain elements of dating advice, all things considered.)
Letter.ly in a big positioning gaffe- seems to forget that very simple rule still applies to the internet. It’s aimed too much at prosumers, and right now, the content seems to be very similar to the type covering the walls of the business section of Barnes and Nobles (or the business section of books of your Kindle- are you happy digital people?)
Or maybe I am naive enough to think that even if lots of content creators can write well, and say something original: Without regularity and a known (probably niche) audience- what is the point? Most bloggers, most users of Letter.Ly, aren’t that. They’re none of the above. And to assume otherwise is a mistake.
Just because Advertising is crappy on the web doesn’t mean the form won’t evolve into high art one day either. And just because it is easy and cheap to put up information on the internet, causing a problem of overwhelming abundance, doesn’t mean that some of this too will change- not all information will be treated the same, and most of it, without very much in curation at all, will never pass through the mind’s eye of the user. So what is the user paying for exactly?
Another easily spread linkable form: They just get to be the first to pay.
As for Sam’s paywall: I’m thinking about it. I don’t think of the blog as a sample of what is to come, it’s too blogger-y- if he can turn it into cheap magazine quality, except of pro material that very few of us want^, we’ll have a whole different story now.
* I case you are curious- we both agree that the internet is a “culturally normalizing/homogenizing” force. Given that there are all those people out there, how will they react to that homogenization- I take it to be a black swan type curve, he takes it to be that the ends of the distribution are much flatter. If it is black swan, there will be a far greater number of groups who feel either a need to hyper-embrace technology and homogenization or alternatively groups that are rejectionist (primarily culturally, not necessarily in use) being created. If he’s right, we’ll see drops in both of those areas. Truthfully, parts of that model are wrong anyway: however it is useful.
^Doubtful when these are Mashable’s numbers. Sam has an economist’s spin to be sure, that may not be enough.
On Sam Lessin and Email
Sam Lessin, of Drop.Io fame and fortune, has built on top of drop.io (if I had to guess) a service that allows you to charge to send emails. Sam’s a smart guy. One of the few in NY who I can honestly say is well thought out. We’re in a minor disagreement over a very theoretical proposition about the web*- beyond that, he’s a guy I would say to listen to.
He’s using his service to shut down his blog, and is now charging $2.99/month to read his thoughts (his reasoning is here, in case you are curious. It is well worth the read. if you see this Sam, kill the cursing in the URL next time you pull a stunt like that…)
This is, of course, a complicated idea.
On one hand, the internet deserves to be paid- No money, no websites, no content. There is labor going into all of this, you know.
On the other, the very nature of the internet’s structure is that of link to link to link (or item to item to item). Creating walls, while possible, right now seems unnatural.
His choice of email, even more so. It would be one choice to be providing a walled off website, as the provider of said website: You are forcing the user to engage with you on your grounds.
However, choosing to engage beyond the fold, into their email inboxes, means choosing to engage with them on their terms.
The internet doesn’t provide the freedom to get rid of power structures when it comes to terms of engagement. This choice, to send out emails, and let the user handle at will, puts Sam (and others) in a weak position:
Is the value of any of these emails worth the price?
Interestingly, one of the critical ways to measure if the emails are valuable is
1) if there aren’t tons of the same repeating message (aka lots of paid emails that say pretty much the same thing from either the same or different people)
2)if there is a critical mass of people to recieve the emails
3)That critical mass of people is still too small to pass some sort of tipping point where your email would be forwarded to oblivion.
Why these choices in particular:
Much like paper media, information only gets expensive when you have a group that needs some information, and that group is too small to be supported by advertising. Remember, Vogue watchers watch how thick the September issue is: Most of the content is not Content, it is Ads. Meanwhile, you bet that some of those readers (how many, I don’t know) probably do subscribe to whatever the equivalent to “Immunology Today! for Lower NY.” Meanwhile, in contrast, the cost of a print version of a law journal (1 issue) can run about 70 dollars.
(1 is just about oversaturation of your market, too many and why should I listen that advice is everywhere, after all. I might give a pass at certain elements of dating advice, all things considered.)
Letter.ly in a big positioning gaffe- seems to forget that very simple rule still applies to the internet. It’s aimed too much at prosumers, and right now, the content seems to be very similar to the type covering the walls of the business section of Barnes and Nobles (or the business section of books of your Kindle- are you happy digital people?)
Or maybe I am naive enough to think that even if lots of content creators can write well, and say something original: Without regularity and a known (probably niche) audience- what is the point? Most bloggers, most users of Letter.Ly, aren’t that. They’re none of the above. And to assume otherwise is a mistake.
Just because Advertising is crappy on the web doesn’t mean the form won’t evolve into high art one day either. And just because it is easy and cheap to put up information on the internet, causing a problem of overwhelming abundance, doesn’t mean that some of this too will change- not all information will be treated the same, and most of it, without very much in curation at all, will never pass through the mind’s eye of the user. So what is the user paying for exactly?
Another easily spread linkable form: They just get to be the first to pay.
As for Sam’s paywall: I’m thinking about it. I don’t think of the blog as a sample of what is to come, it’s too blogger-y- if he can turn it into cheap magazine quality, except of pro material that very few of us want^, we’ll have a whole different story now.
* I case you are curious- we both agree that the internet is a “culturally normalizing/homogenizing” force. Given that there are all those people out there, how will they react to that homogenization- I take it to be a black swan type curve, he takes it to be that the ends of the distribution are much flatter. If it is black swan, there will be a far greater number of groups who feel either a need to hyper-embrace technology and homogenization or alternatively groups that are rejectionist (primarily culturally, not necessarily in use) being created. If he’s right, we’ll see drops in both of those areas. Truthfully, parts of that model are wrong anyway: however it is useful.
^Doubtful when these are Mashable’s numbers. Sam has an economist’s spin to be sure, that may not be enough.
Related articles by Zemanta