I know we’re all wired a little differently so this likely won’t land with everyone, but I’ve been kind of turned off lately by the number of “online creators” who seem to have an inflated sense of their importance/reach/fan base.
It seems to follow this pattern:
I come across an online article or forum post that is well written, makes some good points, and made me consider some things I hadn’t before.
I subsequently follow this person on RSS or YouTube (I gave up the other socials long ago).
Two weeks later I realize half their content is blocked to subscribers only. Then they offer me a course that I need to sign up for.
Now, using David Sparks as an example, I would not lump him into this category. He’s been podcasting for a long time, he has in depth knowledge of his topics, and he’s paid his dues while working a full time job on the side until relatively recently. I think he’s within his rights to create something like MacSparky and go for it.
But when I see someone on YouTube with a tiny audience and they’re asking me to support their channel or take their course, I find it to be a major turnoff. It seems like everyone with a 2 week-old YouTube channel now thinks we should all send them $5 a month.
I mean, people are free to go about their business and who am I to comment on all this?
I’m just saying that as a consumer, I’m far more likely (99% actually) to just unfollow you than to pay you for your one, ten minute video a week. Sorry.
Paywalled everything is an annoying trend coming from a decade ago, where the paywalled content would have been open access and the content creator would have been monetizing in other ways (likely insufficiently to make it full-time, and maybe that was okay).
I believe this trend comes from an observation I think I originally heard from Seth Godin: all you really need is 1000 people. $5/month from 1000 people on the Internet isn’t unimaginable for practically any kind of content, and it’d be an okay revenue stream.
Of course, with every “creator” out there looking for their 1000 people, it becomes harder to find the 1000 people, and more annoying to be an audience member … leading to the problems at the centre of this thread.
And that’s the point. Each to their own on how they earn their money and those consuming it can vote with their feet.
I wouldn’t unfollow someone for offering some paywalled content among their free stuff. I’m also happy to Pay for some things if they’re worth it to me.
Ad revenue has dropped away, not just in podcasting, so people have to earn what they can in a way they’re comfortable with.
Nor would I, but I am tired of how everything and everyone wants more money from me. When a podcaster spends 10 minutes telling me how they need support because ad revenue is down and then goes on about the $4000 laptop they bought just because it was new and shiny, I have to roll my eyes even if it none of my business (or rational). On one hand I want to support content I like, on the other, it just seems like it is non-stop. Apps, podcasts, YouTubers, news type sites. It’s too much, and I have started to cut back on how much money I am paying out (I cut all my Patreon memberships this year for instance).
Godin would’ve been referencing Kevin Kelly’s “1000 True Fans” essay. I happen to like it quite a bit but the part where 99.x% of an audience have to know what the true fans are doing, and say no, gets a bit swept under the rug.
Totally fair rant–I get it. But I do wonder how you arrived at this tiny channel. There would presumably be something special about their knowledge. I assume you’re not talking about a bunch of small channels you’ve never seen.
We do seem to be moving further and further away from the (maybe idealistic, maybe naive) idea that the internet might be mainly about sharing things freely (in several senses).
When I did my Masters in the 1980s (educational computing), there was a lot of respectable opinion that a historically low cost of entry, very low fixed costs and vanishingly low scaled costs (i.e. a website would cost the same whether 5 or 5million people visited it) would mean that it was easier and better to give internet content away than to charge for it.
I was reminded of that early spirit of the internet by a comment to camera by MacSparky (in the productivity field guide) that he started learning and teaching about tech without any idea that he might ever make money out of it - in the early days, hobbyists expected to pay out (a lot of) their own money to own and operate esoteric kit so they could learn about it, and naturally shared with other nerds - learning and teaching - for free.
In my field (education) there was an assumption that teachers would share notes and resources (for free) with other teachers using this great new network and that included software, textbooks etc… There were large-scale social experiments (file-sharing) where people shared (on a colossal scale) all kinds of content for free.
I think we all underestimated both the importance of intellectual property and the determination of those who it had already enriched to not only protect their own IP, but also an economy built around it and to develop existing concepts to make themselves even richer. (like licensing, which means they retain ownership despite being paid). There’s been a concerted effort for many decades now to reduce the public sphere and common ownership - everything from libraries to even playing a radio in the background in an office - in favour of having to pay for content.
The small scale YouTuber who wants you to pay him for speaking his thoughts and insights (useful or not) to camera for a few minutes is only copying assumptions established by very large and powerful corporations that reading, watching or listening to something is somehow wrong unless you have paid for it first.
I guess the other side of the question is why should anyone be providing content for free? And why would anyone think that information of value should be provided for free?
I’m old enough to remember when info was primarily provided via books and magazines. Paid content, albeit with a much higher barrier to entry.
And this is the right thing to do, if the content is not of real value.
As noted, the entry barrier has been lowered. In general that is a good thing. But it does not mean the consumer needs to lower their standards for deciding how to spend their money.
There’s a profound philosophical argument that “you have received freely, so should give freely”. We are all deeply indebted to our parents, teachers, colleagues, predecessors and many others who shared their ideas with us so that we could build on them. The free sharing of information, knowledge and wisdom benefits everyone. it was very much a core part of what being a free society meant as was the idea that the truth would be safeguarded by a variety of authoritative and responsible media more or less freely available to all. You paid for books, newspapers etc. because it was also good to be able to sustain effective authors and the systems for sharing knowledge, not because you were paying for the knowledge in them.
We all depend on free information for lots of valuable things: weather forecasts, emergency alerts, public health messages etc. etc.
There has been a consensus that everything has to be paid for directly by the consumer and that everything can and should be “monetised”. That consensus is being challenged recently, but also being defended, and the astonishing wealth that the consensus has given some, means that the defence is determined and well resourced.
Say what? I paid for books and such for the information contained. Or the entertainment value therein.
There is a profound practical argument that one needs to eat.
The sense of entitlement with respect to knowledge work is to me astonishing. Where else is there the expectation that one should work for free? (Other than say, NCAA athletes?)
To take one example I’m familiar with, as my wife is a teacher, she gets paid for what she does. It is literally her job to share information.
And with respect to this:
Which are paid for with taxes. The people producing this information are paid for doing so. So, not quite free.
Don’t get me wrong, I happily share my knowledge on this and other forums. And am glad that others do as well. But it is not how I pay for my shoes. And until the shoemakers of the world start working for free, I don’t begrudge anyone who charges for content.
For info/entertainment, they aren’t providing them for free, they are advertising, many of them quite heavily (and there is a lot of “If they weren’t an advertiser I would still tell you to buy it” which is complete BS in most cases). And some of them like to act like they are struggling and really need us to support them, while in fact they are doing very well financially. Again, that is none of my business and not my concern, but I can’t help but think it.
For things like apps, I often don’t need or want an ever expanding app. I want it to do one thing (the reason I bought in the first place) and if it never changes, great.
Anyway, this is just my personal soap box. I am sick of the commercialization of everything. Sports, the web, entertainment, etc. I have subscription fatigue and cutting back because of it.
Same here. I support children’s hospitals, homeless shelters, and local food banks, etc. because I believe in helping where I can. I buy books, etc. for their content and hope my favorite authors are successful.
I think it relates to what’s already out there, and the perception of what “of value” actually means.
I get that the average person doesn’t know what many of us know about, for example, technology. But there’s also a veritable cottage industry of people teaching “creators” to take a rather small amount of knowledge and market a rather expensive course based on it. I was pitched one of these courses, and it was explained to me that if I could talk for 45 minutes about a topic I was an “expert.”
I don’t buy it (pun intended).
And to bring it directly back to commerce, we depend on free information at places like hardware stores, grocery stores, etc. The business has a monetary interest in giving us all the free information we can handle if it helps us make a purchase.
I hear this one, loud and clear. My gripe (as noted above) is that there’s a relatively low signal-to-noise ratio even when it comes to paid information. I’m not suggesting that people should put videos out for free and go hungry as a result. I’m suggesting that creators should - as a sound marketing tactic - put out high-quality free videos that demonstrate deep expertise, and THEN upsell people to a well-designed course that actually delivers the promised value.
David’s current field guide is a great example. He puts out content all the time, and I’m guessing that much (or possibly even most) of the Productivity Field Guide could be gleaned from his existing public content if you were listening and systematizing as you went. But there’s massive value to the fact that it’s all collected in a logical, step-by-step format that can walk the average person along.
Nor should anyone. (nice with the pun) And to @RunningBoris 's point, if they are being diengenuous about the need for the paywall, then I’d be wary of the info being provided as well.
But people are paid to provide that information.Thus it isn’t free, in the sense that ‘creators’ on the internet are expected to provide information for free.
For sure. As Sturgeon’s law advises, “ninety percent of everything is crap”. The internet really needs an editor. Until then, sites like this one are invaluable for discovering new podcasts and info sites, ‘vetted’ by like minded folks.
I own several field guides and recommend them highly. Great value for the money. But even David, perhaps now that he does not have the lawyer gig helping to pay for his shoes, has started having multiple paywall levels. Again, I do not begrudge him.
Well that’s the thing though…he gives away tons of information for free. The lion’s share of David’s content has always been, and still is, free. Even on More Power Users, the extra segment is usually something fun - not something critical to the episode. I didn’t get to the end of the AppleCare+ episode and hear David say, “and to find out the 5 drawbacks of AppleCare+, you need to be a paid subscriber.”
I think that’s what most of this is really about. Professional people all over the Internet are putting out tons of top-quality, highly-informative content for free. Along with that, most of them have something they do where you can give them money as well. The free stuff demonstrates expertise. The paid stuff applies that expertise to whatever problem you have.
In professional circles, that second tier of content is frequently free as well. My dad is an HVAC guy, and I remember him talking about sitting around the supply house with other contractors talking about how to address certain problems. In theory that stuff is business knowledge that’s highly valuable - but in practice, sharing it benefits everybody. And then he got paid for applying that knowledge to serve his customers.
And as noted in a previous post, there is also quite a bit of crap out there. Be sure to wear your boots when shopping.
But the sense of entitlement that everything on the interwebs needs to be free is rather bewildering to me, As are some of the arguments presented in defense of that entitlement.
By all means call out those ‘creators’ that do not provide good value (and highlight those who do). But the leap from that to everything should be free shows some pretty shoddy thinking in my (obviously not) so humble opinion.
So you find a well written, thought provoking article, follow the creator and then are put off when you learn of additional content you’d like to consume, is for subscribers only? Oof. Not sure this is really a good look.
What makes you think the creator hasn’t already “paid their dues” in some form or another? A new channel tells nothing about their expertise or lack thereof. Same for sub count.
I really do share your sentiment that it can be both annoying and frustrating when something you want is a subscription or paywalled, but these folks needs to eat too and if you think about it, we’re only annoyed, because we wanted more and it wasn’t just served up.
We’ve been spoiled with an abundance of free, high quality content, but the model is evolving. Podcast revenue has cratered, long term Youtubers are hanging up their cleats. SEO is a mess and many publishers that have been at it as long as David have seen revenue dry up, essentially overnight. If not paywalls and subs, what?
Couple this new normal with an ample supply of AI-crapola-content that’s already en route and we’ll be looking back at the last few years as the golden age. I wouldn’t be surprised if soon, we’ll happily be paying $19 a month for someone/something to sort through all the junk for us and source those $5 gems. Just sayin’.
Why spoiled? Free societies depend on the vast majority of people being able to access high quality information - broadcast news, health information, environmental news, via libraries and places of learning, and in their job too. Good information used to be free or trivial in cost to the user but if the free or low cost becomes low value and/or untrustworthy and you can only find good stuff by paying (non-trivially) for it, that’s not evolution, it’s the opposite.
