<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paying for Your Videos?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/07/02/paying-for-your-videos/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/07/02/paying-for-your-videos/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Finkelstein</title>
		<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/07/02/paying-for-your-videos/comment-page-1/#comment-297</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Finkelstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/07/02/paying-for-your-videos/#comment-297</guid>
		<description>Well, I got slammed (not by you) for my last comment, so maybe I shouldn&#039;t do this  ... but I never seem to learn ...

I get it. It&#039;s easy. Think of the quasi-scam, where there&#039;s a &quot;contest&quot;, entrants pay a fee, the winner gets a prize. The organizers profit from the fees minus the cost of the prize.

With the power-law of popularity, here there&#039;s going to be a few big winners who collect some prize money, and a *lot* of hopeful fee-payers who are dreaming of being a prizewinner. Which will of course be hailed as democratic community citizen participation. The People Formerly Known As The Audience, now known as The Suckers.

Heck, in realpolitik terms, it&#039;s a decent business model, it doesn&#039;t rely on advertising. It&#039;s a gambling/lottery type of business (with a little skill aspect so it&#039;s not purely gambling/lottery, but I mean the system where everyone pays a fixed charge, a few big payouts are the incentive, and the house skims a percentage as the take).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I got slammed (not by you) for my last comment, so maybe I shouldn&#8217;t do this  &#8230; but I never seem to learn &#8230;</p>
<p>I get it. It&#8217;s easy. Think of the quasi-scam, where there&#8217;s a &#8220;contest&#8221;, entrants pay a fee, the winner gets a prize. The organizers profit from the fees minus the cost of the prize.</p>
<p>With the power-law of popularity, here there&#8217;s going to be a few big winners who collect some prize money, and a *lot* of hopeful fee-payers who are dreaming of being a prizewinner. Which will of course be hailed as democratic community citizen participation. The People Formerly Known As The Audience, now known as The Suckers.</p>
<p>Heck, in realpolitik terms, it&#8217;s a decent business model, it doesn&#8217;t rely on advertising. It&#8217;s a gambling/lottery type of business (with a little skill aspect so it&#8217;s not purely gambling/lottery, but I mean the system where everyone pays a fixed charge, a few big payouts are the incentive, and the house skims a percentage as the take).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

