Do you use a friend’s subscription to log in to a premium finance site? C’mon, we all do it at some point. Whether it’s an expensive investment newsletter or a premium version of the WSJ or some other news/research platform? Well, whether you admit it or not, we’re in good stead. AllThingsD reports today about a fracas breaking out between the FT and Blackstone.
The issue at stake? Seems that the venerable, (previously) multi-billion dollar Blackstone has multiple users logging into a single FT subscription. It’s a bit of a mountain made out of a molehill at this point but I think there are some important issues at stake:
User perception of free content needs to evolve like it has with music downloads: Whatever you want to say about the RIAA’s methods in hunting down poor, old great grandmothers and slapping huge lawsuits on ‘em, users of music downloads are still paying for content. According to ReadWriteWeb, the best selling mp3 download on Amazon in 2008 was also available for free (it was Nine Inch Nails, by the way).
On the Creative Commons blog, Fred Benenson asks why people chose to pay for the NIN album even though they could have had it for free. While, as he points out, ease of use is surely one reason, most fans probably simply want to support their favorite musicians by actually paying them directly for their music.
Sorry to sound pollyannish here, but using another’s login is akin to stealing. I’ve heard cases where a subscriber has requested being able to share info with another family member and had the request granted. Once we get to the point, as in the quote above, where “most fans probably simply want to support their favorite musicians by actually paying them directly for their music”, it’s going to be hard to protect premium content from theft. I also believe there is a moral/legal distinction between a father and son using the same TheStreet login versus a for-profit business, like Blackstone, not paying up for multiple licenses.
The fact that we too easily share logins like this illustrates that we’re not there yet.
Distinguishing what type of content people will pay for: I’ve always maintained that people are willing to spend money on things that will clearly help them make money. This is why the investment newsletter business continues to prosper. While music sales are down, I think what is happening is that consumers of music are unbundling traditional bundles of content and paying only for those songs they like. It’s like saying no to call waiting and yes to an answering service from your local telecom provider. Musicians are having a hard time releasing substandard material and packaging it together with one or two hits. Just from an informal survery in my immediate network, almost everyone I know who was using free file sharing software is purchasing music from iTunes or Amazon now. They are just more selective in what they purchase. Content providers need to take consumer behavior into account when determining where the line between free and premium content lies.
As companies like the NY Times teeter on the verge of insolvency, we need to quickly rethink what it means to sell financial content online. Clearly the traditional newspaper business is dead, but the news business is alive and kicking. There is some interesting discussion of a new non-profit newspaper model over on the New Yorker site (you can see it here). Paid newspaper staff is necessary for making news — free blogs are good at interpreting the news. Both need to survive to provide us with a full spectrum of news, opinion and actionable content.
Photo Credit: Bex and Paul > Bratislava
