Comments on: If You Charged for Your Content, Would Anyone Pay? http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/ Improving Healthcare Through Digital Technology -- Effectively using digital technology and social media in pharma and healthcare Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:25:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jonathan Richman http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2383 Jonathan Richman Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:32:26 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2383 Jim, These are great questions. I love this framework. Thanks for taking the time to share. The questions you ask are similar to the thinking behind a concept our agency created called "The Selfish Consumer." Check out the deck on my SlideShare page http://slideshare.net/jonmrich Jim, These are great questions. I love this framework. Thanks for taking the time to share. The questions you ask are similar to the thinking behind a concept our agency created called “The Selfish Consumer.” Check out the deck on my SlideShare page http://slideshare.net/jonmrich

]]> By: Jim Dayton http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2382 Jim Dayton Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:22:06 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2382 Hi Jon, Great discussion-starter today. It was very reminiscent of the question I posed back in June to our clients, http://news.intouchsol.com/Volume1Issue6/OurInsights/SocialMedia.aspx, "Is Your Content Worth Sharing?" I really think there is more to this concept than simply producing valuable content. Don't get me wrong, valuable content is a great starting point. But marketers today need to be taking the next step. Once they've produced valuable content, they need to ask: 1. Am I providing means for my content to be actively shared? 2. Will my content be distributed via trusted sources/affiliates? 3. Will my content make it through the consumer's filter? 4. Will my content make it through my consumer's friends' filters? 5. Am I distributing my content via the preferred channels of my consumers? 6. Will my content elicit a response? 7. How will I respond and engage the consumers that found enough value in my content to respond? 8. And more... These questions directly impact a marketing team's business objectives and strategy, contact strategy and social media engagement plan. And these questions could end up defining whether or not your overall marketing message has any value. Then, there is always the question of whether or not you want your brand to become a consumer destination for information or you want to be the best distributor of valuable content. It's a much bigger question that valuable content, but this is a great place to start. Hi Jon,
Great discussion-starter today. It was very reminiscent of the question I posed back in June to our clients, http://news.intouchsol.com/Volume1Issue6/OurInsights/SocialMedia.aspx, “Is Your Content Worth Sharing?” I really think there is more to this concept than simply producing valuable content. Don’t get me wrong, valuable content is a great starting point. But marketers today need to be taking the next step. Once they’ve produced valuable content, they need to ask:

1. Am I providing means for my content to be actively shared?
2. Will my content be distributed via trusted sources/affiliates?
3. Will my content make it through the consumer’s filter?
4. Will my content make it through my consumer’s friends’ filters?
5. Am I distributing my content via the preferred channels of my consumers?
6. Will my content elicit a response?
7. How will I respond and engage the consumers that found enough value in my content to respond?
8. And more…

These questions directly impact a marketing team’s business objectives and strategy, contact strategy and social media engagement plan. And these questions could end up defining whether or not your overall marketing message has any value. Then, there is always the question of whether or not you want your brand to become a consumer destination for information or you want to be the best distributor of valuable content. It’s a much bigger question that valuable content, but this is a great place to start.

]]> By: Jonathan Richman http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2380 Jonathan Richman Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:55:21 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2380 Liz, So if "would I pay for it?" isn't the right question, then what is? "Is the site worth my time?" maybe. I mentioned that time is money (and Dan said it even better in his comment), so essentially, they are paying for it with their time. You said: "Perhaps it is a matter of putting community first and reframing the site to focus on the up and coming rather than the “its been done” if that makes sense." So, how do you know when you have the "up and coming" and even more importantly, that your customers are going to care about the "up and coming"? Liz, So if “would I pay for it?” isn’t the right question, then what is? “Is the site worth my time?” maybe. I mentioned that time is money (and Dan said it even better in his comment), so essentially, they are paying for it with their time. You said: “Perhaps it is a matter of putting community first and reframing the site to focus on the up and coming rather than the “its been done” if that makes sense.” So, how do you know when you have the “up and coming” and even more importantly, that your customers are going to care about the “up and coming”?

]]> By: Liz Scherer http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2378 Liz Scherer Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:53:24 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2378 Jon - I wasn't implying that you were saying that pharma cos should start charging for their content; what I was trying to say was that perhaps this is the wrong question to be asking when the content is created. As you so aptly state, much of web content is becoming free, hence people are not visiting sites necessarily with the question "would I pay for this" or "is it valuable enough to pay for this," but "is this site worth my time?" Research shows time and again that if you don't grab someone immediately on the home page, you've lost them. So you're correct; pages and pages of "me too" content is pretty worthless. But I think that if pharma is going to get their heads of their butts, they need to think outside the "2000 and late box" which I respectfully, submit is thinking "what would I pay for this content?" Perhaps it is a matter of putting community first and reframing the site to focus on the up and coming rather than the "its been done" if that makes sense. Thanks for a provocative post. .-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..<a href="http://flashfree.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/keep-it-greasy-with-zestra%C2%AE/" rel="nofollow">Keep it greasy…with Zestra®</a> =-. Jon – I wasn’t implying that you were saying that pharma cos should start charging for their content; what I was trying to say was that perhaps this is the wrong question to be asking when the content is created. As you so aptly state, much of web content is becoming free, hence people are not visiting sites necessarily with the question “would I pay for this” or “is it valuable enough to pay for this,” but “is this site worth my time?” Research shows time and again that if you don’t grab someone immediately on the home page, you’ve lost them. So you’re correct; pages and pages of “me too” content is pretty worthless. But I think that if pharma is going to get their heads of their butts, they need to think outside the “2000 and late box” which I respectfully, submit is thinking “what would I pay for this content?” Perhaps it is a matter of putting community first and reframing the site to focus on the up and coming rather than the “its been done” if that makes sense.

Thanks for a provocative post.
.-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..Keep it greasy…with Zestra® =-.

]]> By: Dan Bevan http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2377 Dan Bevan Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:43:43 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2377 @ Liz Scherer According to a maths equation, the average minute is worth just over 10 pence (15 cents) to men and eight pence (12 cents) to women. The formula is: V=(W((100-t)/100))/C, where V is the value of an hour, W is a person's hourly wage, t is the tax rate and C is the local cost of living. It shows that there is no such thing as a free lunch or even a free dinner, while brushing your teeth for three minutes uses up 30 pence (45 cents) in "lost" time, and washing a car by hand has a hidden cost of £3 ($4.50). Thus, reading the content on a web site can be attributable to paying for it - so it should be a good investment, i.e valuable content. (which, I think is the point of this blog post) I also think the value goes up proportionatly dependent on the severity of your condition. @ Liz Scherer
According to a maths equation, the average minute is worth just over 10 pence (15 cents) to men and eight pence (12 cents) to women.

The formula is: V=(W((100-t)/100))/C, where V is the value of an hour, W is a person’s hourly wage, t is the tax rate and C is the local cost of living.

It shows that there is no such thing as a free lunch or even a free dinner, while brushing your teeth for three minutes uses up 30 pence (45 cents) in “lost” time, and washing a car by hand has a hidden cost of £3 ($4.50).

Thus, reading the content on a web site can be attributable to paying for it – so it should be a good investment, i.e valuable content. (which, I think is the point of this blog post) I also think the value goes up proportionatly dependent on the severity of your condition.

]]> By: Jonathan Richman http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2376 Jonathan Richman Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:37:57 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2376 Liz, Thanks for the comment, but, of course, I couldn't disagree more. First, I'm not saying that pharma companies should actually charge for their content. I understand your point that people already have trouble paying for their drugs in some cases (but that's another argument for another day). So, I don't think that pharma companies should try to use their content as an additional revenue source for a couple of reasons. Number one, it's not good enough to charge anyone for it. No one would pay for what they're offering. Second, there's not a reason to charge for it since there is, as you noted, a lot of quality free information out there. My point with the post is that you should create content and applications that are so good that people would actually pay for them if you asked them. My exact words: "Here’s the good news, you don’t have to set up a complex payment system on your site. You don’t actually have to charge people for your content or applications. Just use it as a test to see if what you have is good enough." I think you missed the point. At no point in the post did I say that pharma companies should charge for their content to make it seem more valuable (as you suggest with 'Web content is mostly free and attaching a dollar amount to it doesn’t make it more “valuable.”'). So, that's not really a valid argument here, since I didn't suggest this. Here's my question to you: if a pharma company created something like Nike+ (let's assume Nike didn't do it first), could they charge for it? I think they could because it's a quality product. Should they charge for it? Probably not. It's a value-added service to differentiate them from the competition. If they created a crappy version of Nike+, could they charge for it? Absolutely not. It wouldn't be worth it regardless whether a pharma company or Nike made it. Now, consider this, Weight Watchers has hundreds of thousands of people paying $20 a month to use their web tools to manage their diet. Is their program any better than what SparkPeople entirely for free? I don't think it's $360 a year better. But, it would be perfectly reasonable for SparkPeople to charge for the content on their site. Here's why: even though it's free, SparkPeople was created to a standard such that it could be a pay service. I don't know if this is what the creators were thinking when they made it, but they could have. They may have thought, "what do we have to do to make this good enough that people would pay for it?" If pharma had this same thing in mind when they created something, the quality of what they put out would be astronomically higher. Instead, much of it is created to simply meet the competition's level and that's not good enough. If you create something with the thought that you have to make it good enough so that people will give you their hard-earned money for it when you're done, you'll create things to a much, much higher standard. This was the challenge in my post (and I ask that you re-read it with this in mind). Pharma should create content and applications with the thought that it has to be good enough so that people would pay for it. Right now, there isn't much out there like that. Again, I'm not saying they <em>should</em> charge for it, but make it good enough that you could. J&J's iPhone app, CareConnector, is free, but it's good enough that they could have easily charged 99 cents (the iTunes minimum) for it. And they would have sold a lot of them. Of course, they give it away to help build the J&J brand, but it was created to a different standard and that's what makes it good. Liz, Thanks for the comment, but, of course, I couldn’t disagree more. First, I’m not saying that pharma companies should actually charge for their content. I understand your point that people already have trouble paying for their drugs in some cases (but that’s another argument for another day). So, I don’t think that pharma companies should try to use their content as an additional revenue source for a couple of reasons. Number one, it’s not good enough to charge anyone for it. No one would pay for what they’re offering. Second, there’s not a reason to charge for it since there is, as you noted, a lot of quality free information out there. My point with the post is that you should create content and applications that are so good that people would actually pay for them if you asked them. My exact words: “Here’s the good news, you don’t have to set up a complex payment system on your site. You don’t actually have to charge people for your content or applications. Just use it as a test to see if what you have is good enough.”

I think you missed the point. At no point in the post did I say that pharma companies should charge for their content to make it seem more valuable (as you suggest with ‘Web content is mostly free and attaching a dollar amount to it doesn’t make it more “valuable.”’). So, that’s not really a valid argument here, since I didn’t suggest this.

Here’s my question to you: if a pharma company created something like Nike+ (let’s assume Nike didn’t do it first), could they charge for it? I think they could because it’s a quality product. Should they charge for it? Probably not. It’s a value-added service to differentiate them from the competition. If they created a crappy version of Nike+, could they charge for it? Absolutely not. It wouldn’t be worth it regardless whether a pharma company or Nike made it. Now, consider this, Weight Watchers has hundreds of thousands of people paying $20 a month to use their web tools to manage their diet. Is their program any better than what SparkPeople entirely for free? I don’t think it’s $360 a year better. But, it would be perfectly reasonable for SparkPeople to charge for the content on their site. Here’s why: even though it’s free, SparkPeople was created to a standard such that it could be a pay service. I don’t know if this is what the creators were thinking when they made it, but they could have. They may have thought, “what do we have to do to make this good enough that people would pay for it?”

If pharma had this same thing in mind when they created something, the quality of what they put out would be astronomically higher. Instead, much of it is created to simply meet the competition’s level and that’s not good enough. If you create something with the thought that you have to make it good enough so that people will give you their hard-earned money for it when you’re done, you’ll create things to a much, much higher standard. This was the challenge in my post (and I ask that you re-read it with this in mind). Pharma should create content and applications with the thought that it has to be good enough so that people would pay for it. Right now, there isn’t much out there like that. Again, I’m not saying they should charge for it, but make it good enough that you could. J&J’s iPhone app, CareConnector, is free, but it’s good enough that they could have easily charged 99 cents (the iTunes minimum) for it. And they would have sold a lot of them. Of course, they give it away to help build the J&J brand, but it was created to a different standard and that’s what makes it good.

]]> By: Liz Scherer http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/09/if-you-charged-for-your-content-would-anyone-pay/#comment-2374 Liz Scherer Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:41:29 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=1582#comment-2374 How is this applicable to Pharma? People already have difficulties paying for the costs of drugs; so what is going to compel them to pay for information on a pharma website. I thinkthat you've oversimplified this to the point that it's a lot of drivel (sorry Jon). Web content is mostly free and attaching a dollar amount to it doesn't make it more "valuable." Moreover, value is very subjective. I'd go back to the drawing board on this one. .-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..<a href="http://flashfree.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/keep-it-greasy-with-zestra%C2%AE/" rel="nofollow">Keep it greasy…with Zestra®</a> =-. How is this applicable to Pharma? People already have difficulties paying for the costs of drugs; so what is going to compel them to pay for information on a pharma website. I thinkthat you’ve oversimplified this to the point that it’s a lot of drivel (sorry Jon). Web content is mostly free and attaching a dollar amount to it doesn’t make it more “valuable.” Moreover, value is very subjective. I’d go back to the drawing board on this one.
.-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..Keep it greasy…with Zestra® =-.

]]>