But when a non-paywalled alternative comes about (see Google Law), it threatens to eat its lunch.
I think people view for-pay information brokerage as unfair, unless it comes with service. If it's something they know costs the other party 0 marginal cost to provide, people start resenting them, which causes the paywalled service to hurt doubly hard when a free alternative comes about - even if they follow to free, people might stay away out of spite.
I think people view for-pay information brokerage as unfair, unless it comes with service. If it's something they know costs the other party 0 marginal cost to provide, people start resenting them
I think you are projecting your own personal views, or possibly views which are non-negligible in your social circle of tech-rich cash-poor twenty something males, onto the population at large. Empirically, people will pay for LOTS of things that have zero marginal cost. A short list: airplane tickets, gym memberships, list of bankruptcy sales in Chicago (my dad is a real estate agent and has had stacks of this weekly publication for as long as I can remember -- that info is expensive and worth every penny), and WoW.
I may be, but I don't think most people think of those things you list as having 0 marginal cost, as they're tangible goods or services (although the listings one is a bit sketchy, I think a lot of people view being charged a lot for access to that sort of info as highway robbery, despite its very real value). The cost of information has been anchored at $0 repeatedly over the past decade, and we now use that reference point when deciding the monetary value of new info.
I think I was probably off the mark in my post. It's likely not the marginal cost they're considering, it's likely just that $0 is the new reference cost for info in many people's minds.
Comments
Paywalled search can definitely work, given that you are searching an exclusive data set. Look to Lexis Nexis.
But when a non-paywalled alternative comes about (see Google Law), it threatens to eat its lunch.
I think people view for-pay information brokerage as unfair, unless it comes with service. If it's something they know costs the other party 0 marginal cost to provide, people start resenting them, which causes the paywalled service to hurt doubly hard when a free alternative comes about - even if they follow to free, people might stay away out of spite.
I think people view for-pay information brokerage as unfair, unless it comes with service. If it's something they know costs the other party 0 marginal cost to provide, people start resenting them
I think you are projecting your own personal views, or possibly views which are non-negligible in your social circle of tech-rich cash-poor twenty something males, onto the population at large. Empirically, people will pay for LOTS of things that have zero marginal cost. A short list: airplane tickets, gym memberships, list of bankruptcy sales in Chicago (my dad is a real estate agent and has had stacks of this weekly publication for as long as I can remember -- that info is expensive and worth every penny), and WoW.
I may be, but I don't think most people think of those things you list as having 0 marginal cost, as they're tangible goods or services (although the listings one is a bit sketchy, I think a lot of people view being charged a lot for access to that sort of info as highway robbery, despite its very real value). The cost of information has been anchored at $0 repeatedly over the past decade, and we now use that reference point when deciding the monetary value of new info.
I think I was probably off the mark in my post. It's likely not the marginal cost they're considering, it's likely just that $0 is the new reference cost for info in many people's minds.