Content wants to be free.

We all want free content.

But somebody has to pay for it, and that somebody is you. And me.

What are we willing to pay to get our content for free? What costs are we willing to pay beyond the monetary?

How much of our privacy are we willing to have invaded to get the information and convenience we desire free of charge?

How good does the content need to be in order for us to part with our hard-earned bucks? I was certainly willing to pay for New York Times opinion articles when the Times Select program was in place, but apparently, there were not enough people like me as the program was discontinued.

Now, the Wall Street Journal is one of the few major content providers to charge for content, but it’s not content I’m willing to pay for. However, when an iPhone app recently appeared that allowed free access to WSJ content, I was all over it. Rupert Murdoch is, apparently, quite upset at the existence of the app, but the technology does not exist to charge iPhone users, yet.

Many sites exact a non-monetary toll, requiring you to create an account that collects personal data that, theoretically, can be used to market products to you. These sites do assume that you are faithful in reproducing your biographical information. I am not. I have signed up for many a site as Phil McCracken, Hugh Jass or Jacques Strappe. Age 104. Etc. (While this makes me feel better, I doubt this small-time deviancy really affects the value of the database.)

But there’s other information about yourself online that you can’t hide from the marketers.

If you have a Gmail account, as I do, you already agree to let Google read your email. Why do you think the ads you see are uncannily related to the content of the message you are reading?

Troubling? Yes. Worth giving up the convenience of my FREE Gmail account? Not yet.

(As an aside, it’s really wonderful when contextual advertising fails spectacularly. See this great juxtoposition between a swine flu story, an advertisement for White Castle’s new pulled pork sandwiches, and the cover of The Jerusalem Post. Kosher? No. Funny. Yes.)
Contextual advertising is just one of the tools the advertisers have to get their meat hooks into us when we’re partaking of the free content.

On a logical level, and this is coming from a former newspaperman, I know that there is a cost to producing content. I know that top-notch, unique content costs even more. For years, I readily paid a nominal fee every day to have that content delivered to my doorstep, but the internet changed the content landscape in a fundamental way.

(Interestingly, I pay more each day for internet service than I ever paid for a newspaper subscription; ironically, none of the money I pay my ISP goes to the content creators. It’s like if my newspaper subscription money just stayed with the paper carrier and never went to the New York Times.)

So I am conflicted. I know that advertising pays for content, but I am used to getting my content for free on the internet and there is a part of me that will do what it takes to make sure I don’t have to pay, monetarily or otherwise. However, there is exceptional content out there that I have paid for in the past and would pay for again rather than go without (Sunday just isn’t Sunday without The Times, printed or not.).

And I have resigned myself to the fact that Google reading my Gmail is probably just the beginning of the future of advertising that’s directed solely at me based on where I have been browsing and what I have been writing. Behavioral targeting is the next step, but that’s another post.

— Jonathan

Photo by Fagerjord

Last weekend I attended my first major league baseball game. Sitting behind left field, I had to rely on the Jumbotron to see every play in the infield.

Now I know why good seats are so expensive. People are willing to pay big money to watch the game live on the field, not on the giant screen that shows fans in the upper levels screaming and pouring beer over their heads between pitches.

Though not completely uninterested in the game, I spent the better part of my Sunday afternoon at Tropicana Field thinking about the Jumbotron, and that split second that happens before and after you recognize your face up on the big screen.

Which got me to thinking about content. My content. Your content. How will it change when people start paying a bit more attention to it? Or a lot of attention to it?

Will you stay true to yourself, and keep providing the content that attracted more visitors to you in the first place? Or will you cover your face in bright red paint, pump your “We’re number 1” finger in the air and scream until you can scream no more?

Remember, people like you for who you are, not for who you are on the Jumbotron.

—Wendy Joan

The entire Eat Media team is happy and humbled by this. Being recognized as “good people” is about as good as good gets. Thanks Joey.

Here is Gary Vaynerchuk’s call for “good people” on Good People Day
—Ian

There’s something intriguing about giving up a vice during the 40 days of lent.*

And while some people take the easy way out (liver and onions) others take the high road and give up chocolate. Or cheese.

Which got us thinking–if you had to go on a 40-day content fast, what would you give up?

Here’s a sampling of “chocolate and cheese” sacrifices from those in the office who were brave enough to answer:

Jonathan

As a news junkie who visits dozens of sites on a daily basis, my top 5 toughest sites to let go of for a month would be:

1. New York Times — It may not be making enough money, but it’s still the most comprehensive and best news site on earth.

2. Huffington Post — The design is a wreck, but it has plenty of compelling content.

3. Extra Mustard — Sports Illustrated’s offbeat sports site. Hilarious.

4. My seasonal niche sports site. In winter, it’s Ski Racing; in summer, it’s Velonews.

5. Apple’s movie trailers site. I love movies, and trailers are about all I have time for these days.

Wendy

Facebook. As a chocolate and cheese sacrifice, rather than liver and onions. Would I be out of the loop after 40 days? What kind of information would I be missing? I’m interested how much “knowledge” I get from Facebook–am I subconsciously or consciously getting local and world news from Facebook via status updates, updates from family up north, or is Facebook just feeding me things I don’t need to know, and aren’t important to me in the big picture of existence?

Ian

Techcrunch. Checking NBA scores. Hearing the sweet voice of Pomplamoose on You Tube.

Britta

Saturday mornings would feel empty without Apartment Therapy and Ohdeedoh.

Even a week without Amazon.com would suck. I’d have to say yes when my local bookstore clerk says “Sorry, that title’s not in stock, but we can order it for you!” And there wouldn’t be any brown paper packages to greet my return home.

My Google homepage. Because between Google Reader, New York Times most emailed, CNN.com, weather and the current moon phase, I can stay reasonably plugged in without working too hard at it.

Miller

Print newspapers. This is not a liver and onions sacrifice. I am actually one of those old fashioned types that reads three (!) print papers every am. Seriously.

–Britta

P.S. Eccentrics (and those who smack them down) won’t want to miss this article from the March issue of Inc. magazine on the Wexley School for Girls.

*When it comes to religion, we here at Eat Media take no sides and welcome all.

Last Sunday, The New York Times Style section featured Gwyneth Paltrow’s new newsletter/blog project, GOOP.

GOOP (Gwyneth’s initials, although we never find out what the double O’s stand for) features G-Palt’s wisdom on everything from family-friendly recipes to assembling a fail-proof mommy uniform. I visited the site Sunday morning right after I read the article, and I signed up for the newsletter (who wouldn’t want banana-nut muffin recipes and fashion advice and from Gwynnie?).

But apparently the GOOP team wasn’t expecting the article to run that Sunday. In the Style section. As the lead feature.

Fair enough. I’d give them some time to scramble for more server space.

A few hours later, same error message.

And today, four days later, same error message.

Where is Gwyneth’s web team? How many hundreds, thousands, millions of subscribers have they lost from this oversight?

UPDATE: Strangely enough, I just received a newsletter from GOOP, as though their “something went terribly wrong” never happened. What??

TAKEAWAY: Crazy that we even have to say this, but it’s never okay to skip any form of testing (load testing, browser testing, user testing and re-testing, etc.). Never. But especially when you know you are about to receive national media attention.

–Britta

This article about in Boston.com about how “slackers” have (supposedly) skated past the recession drama-rama brought up good points but contained a few logical flaws. For me, it was an “I see both sides of that coin” moment.  A feeling very similar to my experience of spelling the word, “environment” (en-vahy-ruhn-muhnt), and the aggravation I have with that damn sneaky “n” continually masquerading as if it belonged there. Damn “n”.

Follow me here…this got me thinking about:

1 . If the creative’s blurry line between self-satisfaction/work/ and moving fast leaves them lacking foundation or the relevant experience that taking the long road does. And how big company management may lack the ability to move fast due to bloated infrastructures.

2 . How companies are very clearly run by the creatives or the management. And how this is usually established right on the home page.

Razorfish — (wait, wait let the dots load) = creatives.

OMD —  (very “us” focused) = management.*

3. If the question of, is A better than B, really the right question? The question more aptly may be, who can adapt to the new rules faster, cheaper and better.*

The bet on red: management focused companies use their six-sigma certifications and good ol’ boy handshakes to hire creatives, reduce overhead and change their culture from tortoise to hare.

From Boston.com article (comments)

“When Atlas shrugs, these lightweight Gen-Xer types will be the first to fall off his shoulders.
I love the fact that i work my posterior off to pay for these slackers, and yes, they are slackers, to fritter their collective lives away tipping at socialistic windmills and thinking small. If our fore bearers did this, we’d be wearing skins and living in yurts…and yelling our opinions at each other!! Mr. Scharfenberg you are the perfect O-bot!! America’s call used to be “aim high.” I fear it’s being changed to “aimless.”

Or, the bet on black: creatives harness their understanding of ever changing technologies and multi-tasking to build viable, profitable businesses.

From Boston.com article

“We brought you the Internet, worked on green technology, and filled the ranks of Teach for America. We crossed the color line, ate local produce, and bought secondhand clothing. We lived in smaller spaces, drove smaller cars, and took the subway to work.”

*Either one of these bets could prove successful over time but we don’t have time. There is that old adage that you can have two of the following the three elements in a product or service, but not all three.

✓ Cheap

✓ Good

✓ Fast

This new economy has made fast, or better put “nimble”— a prerequisite. And this leaves “cheap and good” sans parapets, with new positions to defend.

Creative led companies have to stick to their guns but must learn to diversify clientele, services and strengthen their management foundation. Translation—balance time spent on market research and projected cash flow with Twittering about the napkin quality at your local watering hole and submitting things to Found Magazine. Creatives need to understand that hiring one suit with an MBA to play bad cop isn’t going to cut it. There needs to be internal adoption of business fundamentals. This is where “good and cheap” get put under a microscope and where big business has a leg up.

Management led companies on the other hand need to figure out “fast”, fast. (See the well-worn example of 37 Signals.) Creatives already have that figured out. By the time you’ve had your 4th meeting about the corporate redesign and deciphered that usability study, they have redesigned the redesign.  Management needs to buy into a new culture of transparency and make sure their new message/service resonates with a new management style. Translation = they should take the photos of senior management in the old “suit-and-tie semi-circle” off their site. (I’m not sensing insights, ideas or results by viewing this photo. Instead I’m intimidated.)

The race is on. We are figuring it all out too. Place your bets and tip the croupier.

—Ian

Have you heard the story about the $300 million button?

You can read the story here, but essentially, a flaw in an e-commerce site’s form was preventing users from following through on their purchases. The fatal flaw was that the site was requiring users to register before they could enter their credit card.

Shoppers were jumping ship left and right, and the retailer couldn’t figure out why. Finally, they conducted user testing (smart!) and realized the mandatory registration was scaring people away.

As one shopper confessed, “I’m not here to enter into a relationship. I just want to buy something.”

The solution? The designers added a “continue” button that allowed shoppers to go through with their purchase without becoming a “member.” The result? An additional $300 million in revenue each year.

So what does independent radio have to do with this?

You ready?

Here it is.

STOP TALKING.

It’s the rookiest of all the rookie mistakes. How often do we hear the volunteer dj say, “Well, I can’t think of anything else to say, so I guess I’ll play some music.”

But don’t they realize the only reason we’re tuning in is for the music? Because every other radio station in our listening area is playing overproduced pop, teenage screech or the ever so predictable Pink Floyd/Led Zeppelin/Eagles merri-go-round?

If they would just stop talking, maybe we we’d actually turn the radio on every once in awhile instead of listening to Pandora all day. If they just stopped talking, maybe we’d tune in on membership drive day and kick them a few dollars.

Sometimes the best answers are the simplest.

Stop talking.

There’s your $300 million button, indy.

–Britta

No matter your opinion about the bailout, this is a great faux ad. (Not sure who to attribute this to but great job you.)

If you meet someone more than 2-3 times and they don’t remember your name, they may be bad at remembering names. (But it’s telling that you didn’t make an impression.) If you meet someone 2-3 times and they don’t remember meeting you, walk away, you don’t have anything they want and they aren’t interested in anything you have. Your experience/story/expertise doesn’t resonate with them for whatever reason. Perhaps your story is not really your story but rather a reporting of information that is neither focused nor personal. Telling a potential client who won the game or that a new study came out shows that you are in the know but it tells a very surface level story.

The line between customer, service provider, job seeker and brand evangelist gets more blurry by the tweet. (How the hell do you effectively follow 4,356 people on Twitter? And if you do, what else do you do all day?)

As we invest more time in social media strategies our end goal is to get more “subscribers.” More sign-ups, more connects, more touch-points both inside and outside of our natural network. But 70% of the updates/tweets I get are not stories in the authors voice but instead a message or story forwarded from another site. Often this information is useful but I don’t always remember who sent it. I too have forwarded relevant information straight from the source without commentary but it is all about balance. Make sure your client’s know your story first, and then back that up with sourced content. Don’t let the balance go more than 70/30 unique content to sourced content.

“MANAGER OF FREELANCERS. Find and hire and manage the best outside talent in the world. If it can be defined as a project, and if great work defeats good, seriously consider having the MOF get it done.” Click here for Seth’s entire article

Just so happens I know a some folks who specialize in this.

-Ian