【H225】内容付费的合理化 | The rationalization of publishing

内容不断更新，建议购买会员永久查看

正文内容：

内容付费的合理化 | The rationalization of publishing

Now that the ad-only experiment has decidedly failed, quality information providers will be able to build strong businesses, and consumers will be better served than ever

现在单纯的广告的商业模式已经决定性地失败了，优质的信息提供商将能够建立起强大的业务，消费者将比以往任何时候都能得到更好的服务

It was not a dumb idea. It may have even been the right idea at the time.

这不是一个愚蠢的想法。它甚至可能在当时是正确的想法。

That is: With no printing costs and the ability to reach a much larger audience, publishing — the kind that had been traditionally supported by a combination of direct consumer dollars and advertising — could be supported by advertising alone. If so, it would be a huge win/win: Free information for the world and strong businesses with global reach.

也就是说，由于没有印刷成本，而且有能力接触到更多的受众，出版业——传统上靠直接消费者资金和广告支撑的出版业——可以仅靠广告支撑。如果是这样的话，这将是一个巨大的双赢: 为世界提供免费信息，强大的企业遍及全球。

It wasn’t obvious 20 years ago that by going down that road, publishers — who traditionally differentiated on brand, quality, and audience — were entering a commodity business that would be dominated by software and scale. And, even if it was, was there a better option? Getting money from consumers over the internet wasn’t easy back then. Entering a credit card was a lot of friction, and no one trusted it. Besides, publishers were getting paid. Advertisers still cared about brand and context. And, really, how bad was a little banner ad? It’s not like they were taking over your screen and tracking you across the web. And certainly they weren’t influencing what was getting published. It was an okay trade-off for access to great content (most of which was paid for by print ad money anyway).

20年前，走这条路并不明显，传统上以品牌、质量和受众为中心的出版商们，正在进入一个将由软件和规模主导的大宗商品行业。而且，即使是这样，还有更好的选择吗？当时，通过互联网从消费者那里获得资金并不容易。输入信用卡会产生很多困难，没有人相信它。此外，出版商们也能拿到钱。广告商仍然关心的是品牌和背景。而且，真的，一个小小的横幅广告有多糟糕？这并不像他们占领了你的屏幕并在整个网络上跟踪你。当然，他们没有影响什么被发表。这是一个很好的权衡获得优质的内容(其中大部分是由印刷广告支付的钱反正)。

The only thing that went wrong was the inevitable. Business always optimizes for where the money comes from, and advertisers weren’t in it for the public good. Which means they eventually got the better end of the deal, with the rest of us suffering through an experience that was necessarily compromised.

唯一出错的是不可避免的。商业总是为了钱的来源而优化，而广告商并不是为了公共利益。这意味着他们最终得到了更好的结果，而我们其他人则经历了一次必然要妥协的经历。

That story has played out. It will continue to play out for years — free, cheaply produced content isn’t disappearing. It will just get worse. But there will also be an abundance of non-free, non-cheaply produced content that an increasingly large and discerning audience is hungry for.

这个故事已经上演了。它将继续上演多年 —— 免费、廉价的内容不会消失。它只是会变得更糟。但也会有大量的非免费、非廉价制作的内容出现，越来越多、越来越多、越来越有眼光的观众对这些内容趋之若鹜。

Look at the renaissance in television — it was driven by a better (non-advertising) business model. Even though there’s still plenty of free, ad-supported TV. A hundred million households pay Netflix alone for delicious, differentiated, ad-free fare. Look at music. At one point, the sky was falling in that industry because everyone was downloading music for free. Yesterday, Spotify went public and is worth $30B, helping the labels bounce back with them.

看看电视业的复兴吧——它是由一种更好的(非广告)商业模式推动的。尽管仍然有很多免费的，广告支持的电视。一亿个家庭仅仅为了美味的、差异化的、无广告的节目而付费 Netflix。看看音乐。在某种程度上，这个行业的天要塌下来了，因为每个人都在免费下载音乐。昨天，Spotify 上市了，价值300亿美元，帮助唱片公司重振旗鼓。

With both TV and music, the consumer offering is far superior to anything we had before, and there are more options for creators. (True, musicians at the top aren’t making as much as the glory days — but far more musicians are making some money, and it’s way easier than ever to get your music out to a fanbase.) This is the power of a differentiated, competitive market — increasing quality and convenience for consumers, and riches for the winners.

有了电视和音乐，消费者产品远远优于我们以前拥有的任何产品，而且创作者有更多的选择。 (的确，处于顶端的音乐家赚的钱没有过去那么多，但是现在有更多的音乐家在赚钱，把你的音乐传播给粉丝比以往任何时候都要容易。) 这就是差异化、竞争性市场的力量ーー为消费者提高质量和便利性，为赢家带来财富。

There are three arguments you typically hear against the TV and music/publishing analogy:

对于电视和音乐 / 出版的类比，你通常会听到三种观点: