Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
E-mail this blog's author, Charly Z:  |
|
 |
Miércoles, 28 de Agosto de 2002 |
| 9:29:49 PM |  | |
Paid: the economics of content reports on what seems like the next step on Premium. Salon Premium, that is. A user survey has been popping-up for visitors to Salon asking the following questions:
- Would you be interested in subscribing to Salon Premium at a lower annual cost if it still granted you access to exclusive Salon articles and other premium benefits but you were still exposed to banner ads and pop-ups?
- What price would you be willing to pay for the discounted annual subscription to Salon Premium proposed in Question #1?
- If Salon were to publish a quarterly print magazine that featured its best articles over the preceding months, how much would you be willing to pay for an annual subscription (4 issues)?
- If we were to bundle in a free annual subscription to the quarterly Salon print magazine mentioned above as part of a $30 annual Salon Premium subscription would you be likely to subscribe?
I'm concerned that Salon might be too late jumping into the print game, and besides, why pay for articles you've already read online? There's also the question of whether this business model works; how is web-to-print pioneer Nerve doing in that arena? Question to be pondered in the post-bubble world.
| |
| 8:50:40 PM | | |
One Small Step for Man …
… and one giant leap for economists: How we figured out why people walk up staircases but not up escalators.
By Steven E. Landsburg
August 28, 2002
I knew movie buffs, hackers and assorted other geeks could obsess over obscure minutae, but I never expected the same from economists.
...somehow last summer, we managed to spend a week in a state of collective befuddlement, obsessing over a seemingly impenetrable conundrum that came up over lunch: If people stand still on escalators, then why don't they stand still on stairs?
And yet, they demonstrate it's not as dumb as it sounds...
| |
| 8:00:36 PM | | |
The fun with referrals never ends. The ol' list shows a link to this weblog coming from The ChuckleHut, where they link the entry I wrote when "Bill Safire granted 'blog' status as an actual word." Looking at the referrals, which also shows a search on "Safire" and "blog," I assume they got it from there. Thanks to the ChuckleHut for linking me instead of Safire himself.
| |
| 8:41:16 AM | | |
An e-mail I received from UserLand's customer service before I bought my Radio license:
This is the final reminder email. Your 30-day trial period has expired. In order to continue using the Radio UserLand software, you must purchase a license for $39.95 at the Salon Blogs store... We will continue storing your content for 30 days, after which time it will be removed from our servers. [Emphasis added.]
30 days, huh? In that case, I suggest you take one last look at these Salon blogs; they are old enough to have finished the trial period and haven't been updated in a long time, so it's safe to assume they are dead now. Some even announced their departure:
And those are just the ones that still show up in the rankings page.
{List completed at 7:33 PM}
| |
| 7:37:40 AM | | |
As usual, a Johnny-come-lately: Regarding Steven Levy's article on blogs, I have to notice that the "blogroll" on his sample weblog links mostly to other MSNBC logs; though he links under "Blog places" to Scripting News and meta-blog sites like the Blogging Ecosystem, the only outside link under "Weblogs/More" (which I'm considering as his blogroll) is Kausfiles. What's up with that, Mr. Levy? Did you find most of the weblogs out there to be too obscure to link to? Or was that a MSNBC editorial dictum?
Well, following the links to the other MSNBC blogs, I see that they all share the same "Weblogs/More" blogroll, so that one is an editorial inclusion after all. But then, why do they link to Kausfiles if that is a Slate weblog? Oh yeah, silly me! Because Slate and MSNBC are both Microsoft properties. Case closed.
| |
|
