Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles
that have appeared in past issues.

I assume that trend will continue for many other web
sites offering "free advice".

Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
think a better approach would have been to leave the
existing articles free and offer another page with
"chargeable articles".

"Pat Barber" wrote in message
...
Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles
that have appeared in past issues.

I assume that trend will continue for many other web
sites offering "free advice".

Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
think a better approach would have been to leave the
existing articles free and offer another page with
"chargeable articles".


FWIW Pat, I agree completely -BUT, as you said, everybody needs to make a
buck.

Vic

did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help
you remedy your concerns here, Pat.

DAve

Pat Barber wrote:
Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles
that have appeared in past issues.

I assume that trend will continue for many other web
sites offering "free advice".

Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
think a better approach would have been to leave the
existing articles free and offer another page with
"chargeable articles".

Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
others of their new policy?


"David" wrote in message
...
did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
remedy your concerns here, Pat.

Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't
the proper audience; FWW staff is.

Dave

BobS wrote:
Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
others of their new policy?


"David" wrote in message
...

did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
remedy your concerns here, Pat.

It was a fairly mild rant and the purpose was to
inform rather than change policy. I have bought
their articles in the past and will probably continue
to do so.


David wrote:

Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't
the proper audience; FWW staff is.

I would disagree - who would you consider is a better audience than us? Get
all us wood-dorkers all riled up, point 'em in the right direction and
before ya know it, FWW is caving in......

Won't happen but hey, it's the thought that counts....

Bob S.


"David" wrote in message
...
Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the
proper audience; FWW staff is.

Dave

BobS wrote:
Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
others of their new policy?


"David" wrote in message
...

did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
remedy your concerns here, Pat.

I'm not "riled up" about it. If I have a beef with a company that needs
addressing, I pick up the phone and discuss my concerns with the proper
individual. If all I have is a general "bitch" like we all have about
HD, then I might "rant" about the problem here, because there's no
percentage in expecting HD to listen to the same old complaints that
they've heard for years from numerous customers. I'm not sure that all
public complainants really WANT the offending company to change it's
ways. If they did, wouldn't they call the company and discuss it calmly
and intelligently? Works for me! I'm not much for lynch mob mentality,
either...

Dave

BobS wrote:
I would disagree - who would you consider is a better audience than us? Get
all us wood-dorkers all riled up, point 'em in the right direction and
before ya know it, FWW is caving in......

Won't happen but hey, it's the thought that counts....

Bob S.


"David" wrote in message
...

Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the
proper audience; FWW staff is.

Dave

BobS wrote:

Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
others of their new policy?


"David" wrote in message
...


did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you
remedy your concerns here, Pat.

Pat Barber wrote:


Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?

Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
the web should be free.

* Servers aren't free.
* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
* Web designers expect a salary.
* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.

You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.

"B a r r y" wrote in message
Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the
web should be free.

You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.

There is an incredible amount of free information on the WWW as it should
be. Commercial enterprises though, have no obligation to give away
information that they are in the business of selling. Consumer Reports and
Cook's Illustrated don't give it away.

Looking to move to a new city? There are all sorts of information on the
town of your desires and that is a good thing. Most appliance manufacturers
make information available for installation, owner's manuals, comparisons of
models. You can view the new car in your choice of colors.

Unless, like the print magazine, it is advertising supported, I don't see
where any commercial enterprise has an obligation to give stuff away.
Just my opinion.
Ed

Having been in the "business" of computers for
a little over 30 years I understand those costs
more than you can imagine.

The "web" as a viable commercial market remains a
mystery for most who are trying. While many companies
are having great success with retail sites, others
are not.


B a r r y wrote:


Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?

Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
the web should be free.

* Servers aren't free.
* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
* Web designers expect a salary.
* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.

You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:26:51 GMT, B a r r y
wrote:

Pat Barber wrote:


Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?

Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
the web should be free.

* Servers aren't free.
* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
* Web designers expect a salary.
* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.

You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.

You left out that the people who produce the information like to get
paid for it as well. Welcome to the "entitlement generation" who think
everything of value should be free (to them) and that some nebulous
entity (the corporate "they") should pay for it.

Information costs money. Full Stop.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

In article ,
B a r r y wrote:

Pat Barber wrote:


Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?

Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
the web should be free.

* Servers aren't free.
* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
* Web designers expect a salary.
* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.

You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.

Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too...
even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not
unreasonable IMHO.

uh-oh...

I have, however, a completely different outlook on that issue when it
comes to music. I don't think I should have to pay for an album with
just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled
with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her
fans. Record companies are mostly blood-sucking leeches who squeeze
their 'talents' dry and then toss them aside like a used tissue.
I'll stick to the indy's whenever I can and gladly pay for the privilege
to listen to music when I know the money is going to the artist without
the bulk of it ending up in the pockets of fat-cat corporate assholes.

I realize that this ideology is nigh impossible to sustain
completely......but dammit, I'm trying.

*steps off soap-box*


*NOMEX=ON*

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:53:33 -0400, Robatoy
wrote:

Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too...
even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not
unreasonable IMHO.

I kind of like Discover magazine's setup- subscribers to the magazine
can enter the information from their mailing label, and that entitles
you to access all the articles on the site. Might work for FWW, might
not, but it works for me- and it's an incentive to get the
subscription rather than nabbing things peicemeal.

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:53:33 -0400, Robatoy
wrote:

Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too...
even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not
unreasonable IMHO.

I kind of like Discover magazine's setup- subscribers to the magazine
can enter the information from their mailing label, and that entitles
you to access all the articles on the site. Might work for FWW, might
not, but it works for me- and it's an incentive to get the
subscription rather than nabbing things peicemeal.

Yup, exactly. Consumers Reports does it that way as well. I can live
with that. Discover is one of the finest mags on the planet..I just eat
that sucker up and look forwards to its arrival.

But where is Tauton looking to get it revenue from? I suspect the
revenue from books, videos and CD is what they are looking for from
subscribers not page reprints.

Will charging for page reprints keep one from buying a book on the same
site?

Not sure...time will tell. I am in the software business and
understand e-commerce pretty well. I suspect this is an experiment
based on the model created by other publications. They will know
pretty soon via their Web stats and revenues if it is working or not.

I'd be interested to know their "abandon rate" for the Web site and
shopping cart.

NTrout

Robatoy wrote:

I have, however, a completely different outlook on that issue when it
comes to music. I don't think I should have to pay for an album with
just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled
with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her
fans.

I agree, and I'm a musician. G One of my favorite examples was
paying $75 in the late eighties to see Bruce Springsteen play an HOUR of
covers as the second half of the "Born in the USA" tour, while leaving
favorites like "Jungleland" out of the set. Damn, I wanted my money
back! I can see very good cover bands for the cost of a beer locally.

I can also extend that thinking to the film industry.

Paid song downloads will quickly change the music industry. Especially
since a small act doesn't even really NEED a label!

Barry

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:

I don't think I should have to pay for an album with
just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled
with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her
fans.

Hence the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store, where you can buy
single tracks for $0.99 each.

A great model IMO.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message

Hence the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store, where you can buy
single tracks for $0.99 each.

A great model IMO.

You betcha ... as a longtime musician, with a recording studio and a small
record label among other business interests, and therefore a vested, if
somewhat small, interest in the economics of the music business, I agree
totally.

I've spent far more for single song music purchases _online_ since Apple and
iPod than I ever would have buying albums at a traditional record store at
my age

When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is
almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a
hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely
to the same desires that built the industry in the first place.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is
almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a
hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely
to the same desires that built the industry in the first place.

As a kid, all my money went into a juke-box as I didn't have a record
player till I was 17. What I did have, very early on, was a tube-powered
portable radio. It had a massive lantern-sized battery plus a C battery
for the filament. That thing kept me broke as well. On a good day I
could listen to England, Germany or the pirate-ship radio stations like
Caroline and Veronica. Nothing cured my teen-aged angst like a little
harmony from the Everly Brothers.
I'm still a sucker for a good bit of harmonizing, like Hollies, Peter
and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, Mamas & The Papas, CSNY, Beatles (As soon
as I hit 'post' I'll think of a few more.......)

In article , Swingman
wrote:

When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is
almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a
hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ...

Except there's no "B" side...

:-(

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

B a r r y says...

Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW?

Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on
the web should be free.

* Servers aren't free.
* High-speed data feeds aren't free.
* Web designers expect a salary.
* People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary.

You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a
for-profit business, someone has to cover costs.

The problem isn't that they charge to download these little tidbits, it
is how much they charge. $3.50 for one article? Where did they get
that number?

Hax Planx wrote:
The problem isn't that they charge to download these little tidbits, it
is how much they charge. $3.50 for one article? Where did they get
that number?

How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some
combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork.

For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially
zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down
as experience dictates.

Roy Smith says...

How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some
combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork.

For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially
zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down
as experience dictates.

Well, if you ask me, that price has nowhere to go but down. They must
not want to make any sales. When a year of subscription costs $35,
$3.50 per article is an insult to my intelligence.

"Hax Planx" wrote in message
. net...
Roy Smith says...

How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some
combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork.

For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are
essentially
zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or
down
as experience dictates.

Well, if you ask me, that price has nowhere to go but down. They must
not want to make any sales. When a year of subscription costs $35,
$3.50 per article is an insult to my intelligence.

I might guess that the articles are aimed at people who aren't likely to
subscribe, but would like access to a small number of articles. The buyer
doesn't have to purchase a copy at the newsstand (USD7.99) and FWW gets
$3.50, most of which goes right to the bottom line.

todd

Pat Barber wrote in news:GZdwe.1042634
:

Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles
that have appeared in past issues.

I assume that trend will continue for many other web
sites offering "free advice".

Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
think a better approach would have been to leave the
existing articles free and offer another page with
"chargeable articles".


Two thoughts:

I paid for the original publications, saved most of them, and tossed or
took to the wood club the ones I thought excess to my needs. But they
were not free.

My local library has back issues of most of the Taunton magazines. I
can use them at no charge, but I must go to the library, and retrieve
them from the archives. The library is supported with our tax dollars,
but is not free.

And a bonus thought: Taunton evidently believes that there is value
beyond that which they can extract from advertisers on their site. This
experiment will yield its results in due time. I have no predictions.

However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the
Wall Street Journal...

Vote with your dollars.

Patriarch

Patriarch wrote:

However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the
Wall Street Journal...

- Consumer Reports Online
- Pay per use online automotive manufacturer's service info sites, like
techinfo.toyota.com and Subaru's version of the same, are huge success
stories! They take the place of multi-hundred dollar manuals.
- Financial research sites, like Morningstar
- Newspaper sites that allow access to articles from yesterday's paper
and earlier
- Dating services
- Alldata

I can go on, and on....

FWW's online content is typically good enough that it may very well be
viable.

Barry

Patriarch wrote:

However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
viable, ....

*NOT* true. There are a sh*tload of 'viable' commercial subscription services
out there on the 'net. Several _big_ ones:
Medline
Dunn & Bradstreet
Lexis/Nexis
OAG
TRW credit reporting

In addition, there are many _thousands_ of 'niche' operations, particularly in
the realm of stock/commodities/futures/options investement advisory services
that provide fee-based services -- either flat-rate subscription or on a
pay-per-use basis.

The folks that "make money" with Internet 'pay sites' are those who have a
product that is valuable in a specialized market. They also tend to be
'nearly invisible' *outside* of the market that they serve.

(Robert Bonomi) wrote in
:

Patriarch wrote:

However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved
economically viable, ....

*NOT* true. There are a sh*tload of 'viable' commercial subscription
services out there on the 'net. Several _big_ ones:
Medline
Dunn & Bradstreet
Lexis/Nexis
OAG
TRW credit reporting

In addition, there are many _thousands_ of 'niche' operations,
particularly in the realm of stock/commodities/futures/options
investement advisory services that provide fee-based services --
either flat-rate subscription or on a pay-per-use basis.

The folks that "make money" with Internet 'pay sites' are those who
have a product that is valuable in a specialized market. They also
tend to be 'nearly invisible' *outside* of the market that they serve.


I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples
would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.

I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)

The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's
good.

Patriarch

Patriarch says...

I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples
would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.

I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)

The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's
good.

Patriarch

The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want
the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or
ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of
their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than
that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or
magazines with the tools we have now. They need to accept the medium
and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then
somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there
is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I
just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at
subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription
rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy
them?

In article , Hax
Planx wrote:

If there is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that?

Why shouldn't the cost reflect the value of the information, rather
than simply the cost of distribution?

I work for a publisher (have done for most of my career, various
companies. I've been with this one for 11 years). The cost of printing
and distributing our publications are a minority of the actual costs of
running our business.

f the FWW articles aren't worth the money TO YOU, don't buy them. Plain
and simple. Value for money.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:25:46 -0500, Hax Planx
wrote:

Patriarch says...

I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples
would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.

I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)

The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's
good.

Patriarch

The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want
the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or
ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of
their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than
that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or
magazines with the tools we have now.
]
Several years ago, I was a member of an organization that spent almost
all of it's annual budget protecting copyrights it held the rights to.
When asked, the executive officer stated bluntly that it was to keep
the texts unchanged- it had nothing to do with making money. That may
or may not have been true, and it may not be the same case with the
music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost
always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are
investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry
to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing
and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that
they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher
than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm
talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but
not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth
investment needed to download them.)

They need to accept the medium
and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then
somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there
is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I
just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at
subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription
rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy
them?

As far as magazines go, I think you're onto something. I'd be willing
to pay subscription price for a good electronic version of certain
magazines. Music is another story altogether- even with the
popularity of iPods and the like, I still prefer getting a master copy
on an actual physical object.

Patriarch wrote:
However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically
viable, with the exception of adult content.





well, they do run plenty of tool porn....

In article
, Pat
Barber wrote:

Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles
that have appeared in past issues.

I assume that trend will continue for many other web
sites offering "free advice".

Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for
articles that were "free".

I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I
think a better approach would have been to leave the
existing articles free and offer another page with
"chargeable articles".

We can mostly blame the people on eBay that harvest this free
information and burn it to a CD or copy it to an eBook that they offer
for sale, charging for the information is one way to stop these
leeches. More and more sites with free plans are now charging to
download them for this very reason. My site has been copied verbatim so
many times that I have just decided to ignore it, eBay gives lip
service to the problem, but that is about all they do. I have an
example on my site where boat plans are sold, what the customer gets is
a photocopied sheet of paper with the instructions to go to my free
plan site.

--
http://absolutelyfreeplans.com

In article , Frank Campbell
wrote:

I have an
example on my site where boat plans are sold, what the customer gets is
a photocopied sheet of paper with the instructions to go to my free
plan site.

And you haven't picked up on this business model, Frank?

;-)

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com