We like to think that for the past six years Sanitypages.com has been the very essence of the Internet destroying the 'middle man'. Whether that middle man be a publishing house, a record label, a movie distribution house, or any type of product distributor - the Internet is the tool that makes it possible to not only eliminate them, but to thumb your nose as you do it. Some of these distributors have embraced the new technology, and in turn have mitigated the threat, and others have been fighting it. Many believe they will all ultimately lose the fight. Who is right? Who will win? If you are looking for the answer, you came to the wrong place.
end of the middle man
16 march, 2002
by johnmichael patrick monty monteithI do not know about you, but I bore of reading and talking about the Recording Industry (RIAA). Yes, they destroyed Napster. Yes, they seem to be fighting every new form of technology by trying to kill Internet distribution, and any other type of distribution methodology (burning copies, carrying around on MP3 players, etc). We all believe that ultimately they will lose this fight, or at least give up.
The MPAA has not had the ten percent sales loss of the RIAA, but many believe their day of reckoning is around the corner. They might have sued 2600.com from linking to DVD decoding technology, but right or wrong, they can not stop everyone. Yet, their law suits have made it clear that they will fight the exact same fight as the Recording Industry. No doubt that however things turn, they will both share the same outcome.
The interesting story here is that paper publishing houses have been taking a very different approach. Many have been placing their works online for free. This is especially true of periodicals which have seemingly embraced the new technology. They place many or all of their key articles online for free to help drum up business for their paper works. Indeed, if you get hooked to their articles you will probably be willing to spend the relatively inexpensive fee to be able to read them on a nice paper copy. Why did the paper publishers take a different approach than the RIAA and MPAA?
Back in 1996, this silly web site had thousands of hits per day. I know, it seems hard to believe. No worries, it certainly was not due to my writing quality. It was because we had an excellent standing in the web search engines (Web Crawler was the biggie at the time), and publishers were not putting their wares where all could compare and realize what bad writing was on this site. By 1998 our number of hits took a nose dive. Perhaps my writing got worse, but I tend to think that the choice between reading the well known John Dvorak online for free, or to read the unknown Johnmichael Monteith was a no-brainer. In fact, I personally spend more time proof-reading and analyzing Dvorak's online works than my own, which begs the question of why I even write this stuff. But, I digress ..
Clearly the publishing houses quickly realized that if the Internet became a great free-for-all of unknown writers reaching stardom that they were doomed. By giving away their product for free and building nice web sites to distribute the works, they not only could sell advertising on their sites, they could also sell their own published works. "If you like Dvorak this much, imagine how much sexier his picture and words look on a nice waxy piece of paper." (I subscribe, and I can tell you first hand that the sex-scale does not raise. Victoria Secret catalogs on the other hand …)
Clearly this was a fabulous coup by the publishing companies. They look like heroes because they embraced the web and gave away their precious words, while at the same time they continued their revenue stream. But, has this shut down Sanitypages.com and the millions of other free-lance web pages? Far from it. Did it keep many of us from generating the type of traffic that Zdnet enjoys? Absolutely. And why not. They beat us at our own game. But, for how long?
The online free model is something that is beginning to be challenged by the Internet pay-per-use model. The Wall Street Journal, ESPN, and numerous other sites now have online subscriber areas, and more sites are adopting this technique every day. Others are forcing visitors to subscribe to their paper publications by making the current issue, or all previous issues only available to those that subscribe. With online advertising bringing in pennies, this seems like the perfect way to bring in the big bucks, right?
The interesting thing is that this is starting to shift the pendulum back to the unknown writers. As more and more online services force readers to pay, many will spend a few minutes searching for a Sanitypages.com to read some free articles. Seeing the increasing traffic, perhaps some other people out there will even be brave enough to submit some writings to me to place on this site with my own. (Please. It's lonely out here.) This would generate even more traffic, and suddenly this free, not-for-profit little web site could rival Zdnet's David Coursey daily works.
Or perhaps not. David Coursey is the main editorial writer at AnchorDesk over at the Zdnet web site. Thousands read the works of that site daily by subscribing to their free daily email. The company makes their bucks back through online advertisements and their other paper publications. It is unlikely Zdnet would ever have people subscribe. In fact, they take the fight even further by having "TalkBack" areas under every article. This allows readers to write their own retorts to the amazing, or not so amazing stuff that they read. They also have a section highlighting an article written by an unknown to give a fresh perspective. Talk about ideal. They do not pay a cent to the free-lancers who get their publications sent out in email form to thousands, and Zdnet makes a few bucks on advertising.
In fact, I think more and more publishers are going to realize there is great money to be made in not paying stars for writings. Publishing in the future will be nothing more than reading through the countless submissions to determine which they will freely distribute without paying anything more than a tip-o-the-hat to the author. In this way they continue publishing, but they also cut costs enormously. Perhaps to the point where online advertising becomes a profitable business?
Will this keep independents from beating the middle-man? Can the RIAA learn something from this model, and distribute music of unknowns online and make a tidy profit? Due to the mastery of this business model, will Sanitypages.com still be publishing stupid articles by only one person years from now? Or will we be the most popular site on the web and leading a hostile take-over of Zdnet and sacking David Coursey?
Don't hold your breath.
