WWD:
Martha Stewart is about to try something most magazine publishers have yet to attempt: charging for online videos. Next month, Stewart will begin testing consumers' appetite to pay for videos, which will come from archives that are not yet available online. The videos can be purchased at marthastewart.com and then downloaded onto a computer, iPod or mobile phone.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Folks, some have mentioned you tube videos here - the ones I've seen weren't worth paying for. Quality production costs - you either rent or buy professional equipment, you pay a crew, you pay an editor to make sense of it all. I have done dvds and videos - we use 3 cameras and a full crew. I can't afford to give them away gratis. I'd do the same with online pay per view segments.
I think people will gladly pay if the content is worthwhile and something that genuinely interests them. I teach. People all over the world pay for me to come and give them instruction. I can't reach everyone - it isn't possible. But my time and the years I have worked within my medium are worth something. It'd be nice if artists could actually make some kind of living from their efforts.
I've written 3 books, my publisher was just sold to Random House - one is 10 years old and it still ranks in the top 20 in its category, the others are in the top 8. Those aren't free - intellectual property isn't usually free. If I were independently wealthy, I'd happily give what I have between my ears and create with my hands gratis. But, this is my living.
Right, and I might begin testing jumping over the moon...I don't think either of us will have any success. If I buy it can I republish it for free wherever I want? Don't you think people will do that? When Times Select was attempting to gouge it, one of the holes in their plan was that their subsidiary publications would still publish the likes of Krugman, Rich and Dowd for free....
Like to see a poll of just how many people would actually pay for this!!
I'm not one of them. Enough already. GREED
Just cancelled my mag subscription
I am going to do my part by boycotting all internet pay per view scams.
Same here. If I'm going to pay for it, it better have car crashes, motorcycle racing and female nudity.
That's < $7 A MONTH (for all the reading math majors).
Better idea. Provide the vids free to mag subscribers, and provide option to on-line subscribers like Weight Watchers does. "On-line, 3-month membership for the amazing low price of 19.95, that's less than $7 ! ! ! !"
Test away, jail bird. There's a sucker born every minute, but I won't be one of them.
Has Miss Martha looke in the mirror lately?
She is eating too many of her staff's culinary creations.
Martha needs a new hair do and a new show.
No she needs to retire. She's exhausted he schtick.
Actually, in the past I would have paid NOT to see or hear from her.
Ah no!
I love you Martha, but... NO WAY AM I PAYING FOR SOMETHING I CAN SEE ON TV!
Good luck !
Pay per view is a lot more demanding. Advertisers don't care about content. They spent billions of dollars on advertising to reach mindless viewers. Viewers will watch a lot of stupid stuff if it's free. But ask to pay per view the audience will be a lot more demanding about content. For example I will watch The Daily Show and sit throught the commercials because it might make me laugh. But if I had to pay for the show each and everytime it better make me laugh or I am not going to waste my money. Martha will find viewers will not part with their money to watch TV as indescriminately as advertisers do to reach them.
These people are greedy. First of all we already pay for the service and now you want to pay for videos... What do you think youtube is for and if they charge I will find something free to do. Whatever! Adore Martha but didn't she make a lot of money last year...stop it.
Loading comments…
Posted: 05-15-09 09:03 AM