logictortured.com Blog

The lack of logic for paywalls…

Marion Maneker over at the Big Money website wrote a piece entitled "The Weird Logic of Paywall Challengers."  He attempts to show that the arguments used by those against paywalls are illogical.  He also attempts to show that paywalls are not only a good idea but a necessity for news websites.

First, a little background.  Some internet news sites are making people pay to view content.  That's called a paywall.  You can't view the content without paying.  So far the attempts to impliment paywalls have been complete failures.  For example, when Newsday set up a paywall, only 35 people paid.  After the Times instituted a paywall, its readership dropped by 2/3rds.  And because those articles are not being indexed by Google (or Bing or Yahoo) they're essentially invisible to people on the web.

So what's Maneker arguments in favor of paywalls?  What errors in logic have those against paywalls made?  Let's go through his points.

His first point is that even if ad revenues are back, news outlets should diversify by charging anyway.  He doesn't seem to get this, but as I explained above, paywalls kill off advertising by driving viewers and readers away.  So Maneker's argument that news outlets should diversify by relying on both advertising and paywalls fails as it is self contradictory. 

His second point is that news outlets charging "for content has always been part of its long-term strategy."  He's absolutely right that newspapers have tended to charge for content.  However, that was never done for profit. Profits always came from advertising, classifieds, and obituaries. 

There were two reasons newspapers did charge.  The first was to cover the costs of publishing.  However, those costs no longer exist in the digital realm. 

The second reason newspapers charged was to show advertisers how many actual readers they had.  If a newspaper publisher simply gave away its papers it could claim that millions of people are reading when in fact no one is reading.  People paying for newspapers is a pretty good indication to advertisers that people are in fact reading.  But in the digital realm news outlets do not need paying customers to tell advertisers how many unique people are reading.  All that information can be tracked automatically in real time.  Heck, in the digital realm news outlets can give specific information about page views and what ads are working and what ads are not.

His third point is that "central to any media strategy should be the idea of charging for some content."  Has he never listened to broadcast radio?  Has he never watched broadcast TV?  Has he never used Google, Facebook, or Twitter?  And despite being contradicted by legitimate business models, his third argument is circular.  He's essentially arguing that news outlets should charge for content because they should charge for content.  It only concludes it's premise without telling us why.

Along with his third point he pulls the following assertion out of his ass, "Digital distribution should make content much cheaper—but it shouldn't make it free."  Why shouldn't it be free?  He never explains.

Hundreds of years ago the most efficient means to distribute news was to print it on paper and deliver it locally.  Times changed.  Radio came along and made delivering news in real time more efficient.  But it still lacked the newspaper's depth.  TV news had the same problem.  But the internet does not.  It has the efficiency, the immediacy, and the depth.  Because the distribution costs are essentially zero, economically speaking, there is no reason why the cost of the content should not also be free.

If Maneker's piece is any indication, the pro-paywallers' dream of making us pay for news is a lost cause.

Update – Jul 29th 2010: This has been cross posted over at TechDirt.com. If you like this post, check out Tech Dirt for similar rants.

Update – Sept. 7, 2010:

It appears the Sunday Times’ experiment with paywalls is an abysmal failure. Everything that I said would go wrong went wrong.

First, there was a 90% drop in readership. Second, the stories were not indexed by search engines, so they’re invisible on the net. Third, because no one is reading them, advertisers are not advertising on the site.

So no one is paying, no one is reading, and no one is advertising. Yep, that’s a failure.

I won’t be holding my breath for Marion Maneker to admit he was wrong.

Update – Dec. 7, 2010:

It appears that Newsday’s infamous paywall is coming down, for a month. Why a month? Mmmm….

Newsday’s ad revenues were way down after the paywall went up. But do they really think they’re going to get a ton of traffic in only a month? It seems unlikely.

Maybe this is just a way to save face. They’re saying they’re doing it for a month, but really they’re simply getting rid of it.

Share this:

Out with the old…

I’ve written previously about the impending death of the independent book store.  It appears that publishers themselves are facing a crises.  Writers are bypassing traditional publishers and are making ebook deals directly with Amazon.  They’re able to do this because their original agreements with the publishers did not specify ebook distribution rights.  So under the law, such rights remain with the authors.  

I never understood why major music artists aren’t doing this.  Why do they let the labels take huge cuts from their work when they can sell their music directly through Amazon and iTunes and keep the profits for themselves?  

I wrote about John Mellencamp in the past.  He’d be a perfect candidate to break free from the labels, which he’s bitched about his entire life, and sell directly to his fans.  But yet he’s complaining that the label model is dying.  Artists like him are so locked into the label mindset that they don’t realise they’re trapped.  It’s like a rockstar version of the Stockholm Syndrome.

The only old artist who seems to get it is Mick Jagger.  He recently pointed out that the whole model of selling music to fans via plastic discs only lasted about 25 years.  He recognizes that it was a blip, a mere anomaly, and that artists should probably give up on trying to get it back and earn their money the old fashion way.  Performing.

Share this:

Don’t do as I say…

An attorney came into my office and asked me,

Can you check to see if my client is on your list for today?

I immediately start checking my list. The attorney continues…

He’s not on it, I already checked.

Share this:

Redneck Fireworks

Last night was the 4th of July, so like most Americans, I was watching fireworks. Every time I go to see fireworks I can’t help but notice other people launching their own fireworks at the same time. I’m not talking about sparklers or bottle-rockets. I’m talking about serious fireworks, but not as serious as the real fireworks everyone else is watching.

I can’t help but think about the mentality of the guys (yes, they’re definitely men) who launch these minor fireworks. What kind of guy does that?

Well, he’s probably been drinking a tad. He’s almost certainly wearing a t-shirt of some sort. And yes his pant/shorts are made of denim.

But I can’t also help but think he has some sort of inferiority complex. Everyone in the entire country gets together to watch fireworks. But he can’t be a part of that. He has to launch his own inferior fireworks at the same time in a sad and desperate attempt to say to those around him, “Hey, look at me.”

I imagine him yelling to his wife, “Hey, Brandeen, check this one out.” She politely turns her head to watch him launch it before turning back to watch the real fireworks.

The guy probably makes his kids watch too. If they’re old enough they probably go to a friend’s house to watch the fireworks. Just to avoid dad’s drunken cry for attention.

Share this:

Line 6 Spider II 112 Guitar Amplifier

I recently bought a used Line 6 Spider II 112 guitar amplifier. I can’t describe it more awesomely than Line 6 does itself:

Spider II 112 packs 12 insane amp models, 7 psychotic effects, and 75-watts of juice into one powerful and destructive combo. Now take a look inside the twisted mind of an amp with nothing to lose.
* 12 amp models that deliver a complete range from Clean to Insane
* 7 Smart Control effects (up to 3 simultaneous) including Tape Echo, standard Delay, Sweep Echo (all w/Tap Tempo), Chorus/Flanger, Phaser, Tremolo and Reverb
* 4 User-programmable channels
* Built-in front panel Tuner
* Enough power to kill pesky Chupacabras and Evil Payasos

Hemingway would have been proud of such understated subtlety.

If you can’t tell from the insane and utterly twisted description, dude, it’s a 75 watt amp driving a 12 inch 8 ohm Celestion speaker. And despite being relatively small, it’s loud with killer bass/bottom. Very fricken loud.

It’s one of those newfangled digital modeling guitar amplifiers. Basically by using digital technology it can make your guitar sound like a “’68 Marshall,” “’60s Fender amps,” or even “crisp, amazing clean tones all the way to warm jazz tones.”

I’ll get this out of the way. I’m not a tube snob. I’ve had two tube amps in my guitar playing past, but I prefer solid state amps because they’re more reliable. With tube amps, not only are you never certain they are going to work. You are never certain how they are going to sound. Different weather conditions, e.g., humidity, made them sound different from show to show.

I’ll admit that ideally tube amps sound better than solid state amps. I’d certainly rather use tube amps in the studio. But for day-to-day use I’m a solid state kind of guy.

With that out of the way I’ll say this. There is no fricken way this amp could be mistaken for a tube amp. I’ve played through Marshalls and extensively through a Fender Twin, there is no way this one sounds as either. Sure, they sound like them, but in the same way that Bon Jovi sounds like hard rock without being hard rock. The amp only offers approximations of those other amps.

Even the “insane” setting (yes, there really is an insane setting) sounds pristine, polished, clean. If that makes any sense.

The main problem I have with such built in effects is that there is little chance of a guitar player coming up with his or her own sound. Marshalls were like blank canvasses. Hendrix made them sound different from Townshend, who made them sound different from Iommi, etc., etc..

But if three different players chose the “’68 Marshall” setting on their Line 6 amps, they’re going to sound the same. Such built in effects, or “models” as they’re apparently called now, do not expand a guitarist’s pallet, they ironically narrow it.

Anyway, enough of me bitching. The amp has a built in headphone/output jack that actually works. The output is a nice touch. I used to have a similar output in a small Fender amp I used. You can just plug it directly into the P.A. system if you’re playing a show and you don’t have to worry about your own volume.

I said it before, the amp is loud. And I’m shocked at how low the bass is. It actually moves furniture without being muddy or distorting in a bad way.

It has built in vibrato like the Fender amps it’s supposed to approximate. I’ve never liked vibrato.

It has a nice sounding reverb setting, which I do like. You don’t realize how dry a guitar sounds until you take away the slight reverb.

It has a delay/tape loop effect. I’ll never use that. It’s something that sounds good until I actually try to use it in a song. Then it’s just annoying. But it does sound good if you need that sort of thing.

It also has Chorus/Flanger and Phaser. I used to use Chorus quite a bit back in the 90s. I’m not sure anyone still does. It sounds dated to me. But all of them sound good if you do want them.

It has a built in tuner. It automatically turns off the amp when you’re tuning so no one can hear you tune. It’s a nice touch. But if that’s what a new player learns to tune on, s/he’ll never really learn to tune as s/he’ll never hear when it’s right. That’s just a minor complaint about young whippersnappers, not about the amp, though. Clearly, the amp has to go off when you tune.

You can buy separate foot pedal/controllers for about 100 bucks. Some offer a wah pedal, but from what I’ve read and hear, it’s not very good. Some give you a foot controlled volume pedal, which is a great idea. You can also chose from between 4 preset settings set via the settings on your amp’s setting knobs.

The foot controllers with my Crate, Peavey, Fender, and Carvin amps only gave me two options, distorted and less distorted/clean. Having four would be pretty handy. I definitely could have used that in a band I was in called Worrystone. I’d have to go from a Telecaster twang, to a powerful crunch, to clean funk all in the same song.

No guitar amplifier review would be complete without the ultimate test. I have an original Gibson EB3 bass. It has a “number 1″ setting which makes a normal bass sound about an octave lower. Think 808 bass. A quality amp should be able to endure the number 1 setting without distorting or crapping out. The Spider II did admirably. It filled the house with a low throbbing noise which made the dog and cats run in to see what the frick was going on.

Overall it’s a pretty damn good amp and I got it for an amazing price. I almost sort of thought it might have been stolen because the guy was so eager to sell it so cheap. But he knew too much about how to work it to have just stolen it.

Since I haven’t really played guitar since the 90s, the company Line 6 is completely new to me. In a way the company is similar to Peavey’s 80′s attempt to appeal to metal heads. The pristine cleanness of the amp also reminds me of Roland amps.

All and all I’m glad I bought it. I only wish I had a band to try it out in.

Update 07-23-10: I recently bought a Line 6 FBV Express MkII 4-button Foot Controller for my Spider II. As I wrote above, the amp has four models you can preset, which could be really handy. It also includes a foot pedal which could be used for either volume control or wah. Both work well. Lastly, you can control the built in tuner with the FBV Express MkII, which would be handy to quickly and discretely tune in a live situation.

Unfortunately I had to buy the FBV Express MkII brand new, so it doubled the price of my amp. I justified the purchase by recognizing that five different pedals, including a wah, would have cost a heck of a lot more.

Share this: