Do people hate the idea of paying for content on the Internet?

"mcseanerson" (mcseanerson)
09/02/2014 at 13:52 • Filed to: None

I've tried posting some links to Drive+ videos when they come out with a little line of what I liked or gained from them and I never really get anyone agreeing or saying they like that too in the comments. I always get "I'm not giving them my money." or "I'm not paying for that."

The type of comments don't come off as cheap or even just budget conscious, it comes off as though people are mad at them for asking for money. I wasn't happy when they announced it either but in the name of science I decided I will try the service out for at least three months and compare the regular Drive videos with the Drive+ ones. So far I have been happy with the extra quality/quantity of videos on Drive+.

This is about more than just my satisfaction though. People need to remember there is no free lunch no matter how much the Internet pretends there is. If the Drive team wasn't able to keep going the way they were and needed to charge to keep going that means Drive+ subscribers aren't just paying for themselves. We're paying for the regular Drive viewers too. If we didn't chip in they might not be able to afford the budget for the regular Drive videos and could maybe disappear altogether.

Think of all your favorite shows that get cancelled and you never get to watch any more. As content consumers we need to be both vocal in our support as well as putting our money where our mouth is and financially supporting worthwhile content. I purchased the documentary !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! because I wanted to support the producer as well as express that I would like to see more content like that.

I did that even though the price was higher than a lot of the content I'm used to getting online because I want the trend of quality automotive content online to continue.

DISCUSSION (38)

CalzoneGolem > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 13:54

I can't speak for others but as for me funk that noise!

ttyymmnn > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 13:56

I'm old enough to remember when the Internet started, and ever since Day One, nobody thinks that they should pay for anything. If it's on the Web, it should be free. Or so goes the prevailing attitude.

For Sweden > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 13:57

It's an American thing, especially an American television thing.

American TV comes in two major forms: free-by-advertising or subscription based, and Americans expect internet video to follow a similar model. They pay for internet service (similar for cable/satellite service), and expect advertising revenue to pay for the rest.

If something like Drive+ is going to succeed, it has to be like HBO/Showtime/ETC: worth the extra money.

ghosty - electric space wizard > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 13:58

Honestly, if it will improve the quality or duration of the webshows I like, then I don't mind throwing them a few dollars. I hate advertisements though, so that's just me.

macanamera > CalzoneGolem
09/02/2014 at 14:01

Go ahead and speak for me lol.

macanamera > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:01

Yeah. They hate it,

Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW. > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:02

Well, it depends, but mostly yes.

The only way to made them pay is made the transaction as simple and as cheap as possible. I know some people blowing up to 300-350 bucks on Candy Crush Saga.

ACESandEIGHTS > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:02

That horse already bolted from the barn. Early on if people had been readied for microtransactions they might be cool with paying a nickel for this video and a dollar a month for that magazine/newspaper site, but nowadays we're all convinced it should be free.

Here's the other side of it: Sites/companies are so used to tracking your demographic data that even if you paid they would still want to compile stats on your usage, even though you're paying for them not to do that.

I doubt there's any going back. Not with Google having set the ad-supported internet bar so high.

I considered paying for WRC+ and realized that $6/mo was steep. Make that kind of service $2-$3 a month and you'd have a viable model for live streaming and highlights of F1/WRC/FIFA/NFL/MLB/NBA/NASCAR/WHATEVER. And people would pay it I have no doubt.

ACESandEIGHTS > ttyymmnn
09/02/2014 at 14:05

I'm old enough to remember when the Internet started, and ever since Day One

That one day when Al Gore walked out on stage in a black turtleneck and jeans? ;)

BKRM3 > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:14

I bought Drive+ to support them in their transition. I think the amount and quality of the content will continue to increase after they've finished working out all the kinks. At least I hope so, and I'm willing to stick with them for a while to find out. They're genuine enthusiasts and make excellent videos, especially for an outfit that isn't a full-on automotive magazine or high dollar TV project.

Of course, I'm also the adult male who just paid $1.29 to download the new Taylor Swift single so what the hell do I know....

ttyymmnn > ACESandEIGHTS
09/02/2014 at 14:15

Yes! I was there!! Not really, but I actually didn't type on a computer until grad school in 1989.

NaturallyAspirated > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:16

I think it's because people who are satisfied or pleased with something are less likely to be vocal about it compared to people who are upset about something.

mcseanerson > NaturallyAspirated
09/02/2014 at 14:19

Yeah you're probably right.

mcseanerson > BKRM3
09/02/2014 at 14:22

That's kind of what I'm doing. I want to see how it goes and also support them. If we don't support them they could disappear or worse, become filled with product placement like bones.

BKRM3 > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:26

Oh my god that's gratuitous lol

Snooder87 > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:32

It depends on the content. I don't mind paying $8.99 a month for netflix. If drive+ had half the content that netflix does, paying $3.99 a month for it would be appropriate. It doesn't, therefore I'm not paying for drive+.

Frankly, I don't mind ads. Sometimes they are entertaining in themselves. I just had a nice chuckle at a commercial for ZzzQuil yesterday which was more entertainment than the show I was watching had to offer.

The Transporter > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:37

I wasn't really mad about the paid subscription thing. I just expected more/better content for it. The last few seasons I watched everything they put up as soon as I could. Even if I didn't care for the car in question, I always found the programming to be fun to watch because you really didn't know what you were going to see next. They even got me to like European hypercars with their "Inside Koenigsegg" segments.

The first episode of the NBCSN show was a big set up to a disappointment. The Monaco GP episode was absolutely fantastic. Unfortunately, every other episode has been a rehash of something I saw six months ago. I thought them being on TV would lead to higher quality programming.

As for /DRIVE+, here's the list of cars so far: McLaren 650S, Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, BMW, Porsche, BMW, VW, Ferrari, VW, BMW, Ferrari, and BMW. Not exactly the variety that I am accustomed to, the McLaren hot lap notwithstanding. The new episode by Mike Musto that just went live a few hours ago is literally the first thing on /DRIVE+ that I wanted to watch. So far I haven't felt as though I've received my money's worth.

GhostZ > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:38

Yes.

Your question is not "do people hate for paying for content on the internet", it is "do people hate the idea of paying for content on the internet." And that is an unequivocal yes.

The internet, when it comes to content, is buyer's market. There's so much of it competing for space that ANY price over the time it takes to load a page is too high to be competitive. High quality free content is the only content that can survive.

What Drive did is they went from being a highly competitive product (like, say, Crest Toothpaste) to being a luxury good. Imagine if Crest quadrupled their prices and formulated their toothpaste, putting it in a fancy box with a bow. Would you still buy it? I bet you would hate Crest too. Well the difference here isn't a quadrupled price, it's going from 0 to one of the most expensive products in its market ($4 a month is still a lot for internet content, few places charge more).

In essence, they made a very common mistake, assuming that just because their content is the same, their audience would be the same. This is not true.

Something like this is actually pretty common, in markets where produces are so cheap with such a variety of audience that there's no room for increasing profits.

The idea of 'your friends' videos, someone you've grown accustomed to enjoying, suddenly becoming a relative luxury good definitely leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

mcseanerson > Snooder87
09/02/2014 at 14:38

I agree with you to an extent, I would like to get more content for my $3.99 or at least more content for a little more money. Like if I could get Drive+ and couple racing series streaming with it like WRC and WEC I'd be pretty happy to pay $6 a month for that.

As for ads I'm fine with a show I like supported by ads that are not intrusive and annoying and the show not getting canceled. But there are not a lot of shows that fit that bill anymore.

The difference between paid drive and free drive might not just be ads. It might be the only way for either to exists is for subscribers to support them.

Textured Soy Protein > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:39

My general rule with paying for things online—apps, music, news, videos, whatever—is that I only spend money if I can't do something I want for free. There's so much free stuff out there that if something free becomes not-free, I just go somewhere else.

For example: I had a free online subscription to the Washington Post after they went to a paywall, thanks to an old .edu email address that I had lying around. When that email expired, and I had to re-verify my account with my gmail address. No more free subscription. My reading of the Washington Post went way down. Although you can pretty much get around their paywall by using incognito tabs in Chrome. And I just realized, oh hey, I've been working at a school since May and my work email is .edu, so I just used that to reactivate my free subscription. But if I didn't have that .edu email, I'm not so attached to the Washington Post that I couldn't do without it.

Similarly, /Drive was something I subscribed to on Youtube, among many other car-related channels. Now that /Drive has decided to put some content behind a /Drive+ subscription, I still have plenty of other car videos to watch on Youtube. So I just watch those other channels.

GhostZ > ghosty - electric space wizard
09/02/2014 at 14:39

The problem is that there's no guarantee, at all, that it would increase quality or duration in the case of Drive. They're using it to cover costs they were previously covering, not expanding or increasing their quality.

mcseanerson > The Transporter
09/02/2014 at 14:42

I'm still waiting for a while before I declare how I feel about it but it's actually the dialogue that has made me the most happy. I was getting bored with Chris Harris for instance and his FF video excited me just with what he said. I also liked Joe Rogan's impressions of flappy paddles versus manual transmissions.

deekster_caddy > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:43

Quite honestly, I haven't tried to watch any of their content since the change. I didn't realize there were options. I will give the ad supported model a try. It doesn't help that I don't get to watch much TV these days. (I know, it's youtube, but even that's on my TV now so I still think of it as TV...)

edit - on the original question - it's not a question of whether or not I will pay. I'm a netflix subscriber and a cord-cutter, so yes I will pay. But as far as what I watch, I'm way behind on current programming. I don't get to watch nearly as much TV as I would like, so it's important to me to be able to watch what I want to, when I am able to watch it. I have a DVR connected to my antenna (which gets many strong signals). I record new shows there and fast forward their commercials when we watch them. Probably 90% of what we watch at home is through Netflix.

When I watch internet-based advertising that's supporting an online show I am watching, I have no problem watching the ad as I know it's eventually directly supporting the show I am watching. So models like the NBC iOS app that present their own advertising works for me.

If I watch the /DRIVE shows on the NBC Sports app, does it present ads that way? Do they have full episodes? Is there a separate payment required? Is it a per-episode payment or do I need to subscribe?

One thing I definitely don't see is much information about /Drive and what the full options are.

mcseanerson > GhostZ
09/02/2014 at 14:48

If you really think about it how much good quality free content is there out there for car guys? You have Petrolicious, and regular Drive, and Jay Leno's Garage (for the time being), and ..... I can't think of anything else that doesn't cater to a very specific crowd.

As for Crest, it is a luxury product. You could be buying the stuff at the dollar tree.

I think as the internet matures and it's audience matures we have to realize it costs money to produce things and that we need to support the things we like. Otherwise the internet will be filled with buzzfeed because they get more views than something that's actually good. In the same respect I support Drive+ with my wallet I support free sites by not running ad blocker.

Snooder87 > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 14:50

If the only way for them to exist is to charge more money than people think the content alone is worth, then their business model is broken and they need to figure out something better.

Dusty Ventures > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 15:31

It made me so sad when Warehouse 13 pulled that same nonsense. Or when EVERY EPISODE OF EVERY CBS PROGRAM started including a gratuitous Bing search.

thejustache > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 15:59

I was an enthusiastic watcher of everything Drive was putting out while it was free, but I am not paying for Drive+ and have no intention to do so, even if it unfortunately means their demise. I have nothing inherently against the idea of paid subscriptions for quality content, and nothing against Drive or those that do pay... I just personally don't feel the need to do so given the state of alternative content that I enjoy.

I get that Drive was often times a cut above the rest in terms of production quality and range of content, and that probably carries with it a price greater than other similar shows. However I still believe that if a show is truly based on individuals that do what they do out of a love of it first, than they will find ways to make it happen without turning to subscriptions. I enjoy the youtube car show Mighty Car Mods (and the spinoff Lend us a Ride) quite a bit... yes it's a different idea than Drive entirely and the production quality is occasionally a bit homegrown, but they've managed to do some really ambitious things - such as release 2 feature length films in addition to their standard content. They have stated publicly that despite being offered the subscription model by youtube they will keep their videos free as long as they exist, because they have other jobs and they do this first and foremost out of a love of cars and car culture. Personally, I think establishments such as Drive will have serious problems with subscription pricing as long as other folks continue to provide other quality options and not require a subscription.

As for one time purchases such as Easier Said than Done I see that as another thing entirely. I too paid out for that, even though it's more than I would traditionally spend on such things. I did that because I saw a guy with a passion and wanted to help enable a specific project. I have lots of friends who are professional bluegrass musicians, a genre filled with musical talent but not always the wealth of fans to support it. A handful of my friends have turned to Kickstarter to fill the gap when it's come to album projects, and I've happily donated because I see an individual with a dream and the talent to back it up. If a youtube show such as Mighty Car Mods, or Roadkill, or XCar, or even Drive was to attempt something ambitious beyond what they could afford on their own, I'd gladly donate to it. That just feels different to me than taking something formerly free and putting it behind a pay wall, even if they are intended to accomplish the same thing. Somehow front funding a project you can know about just seems better on the internet than blindly paying for content after it's been produced.

mcseanerson > thejustache
09/02/2014 at 16:11

I definitely agree with your last paragraph. My first thought when they came out with the subscription model was I better get better stuff than the plebs and I better get better content than I was previously getting for free. One of the points behind this is they were funded by Youtube for the first couple years. Now they are on their own and free to pursue more ambitious projects. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. If I buy into a subscription model I definitely want more content than what we've been getting from Drive.

What I'd really like to see, as far as subscription models go, is something that could also throw in some streaming motorsports.

PS9 > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 16:12

I think the problem is twofold. One is the juxtaposition of monthly installments against all the other monthly installments one must make. Two is what drive offers vs. the competiton.

A person who's already paying $60 or whatever it is a month for their sub'd smartphone (less for tablet internet service), and maybe has an xbox live/PSplus subscription, plays WoW, has netflix, or any combination of those things is going to groan over yet another monthly installment.

Another is the problem of other forms of streamed online entertainment. $3 for one show vs. $8 for a whole library of every show you could ever want to watch? That's a tough sell. Nevermind all the stuff you can get for $0, legitimately or not.

mcseanerson > PS9
09/02/2014 at 16:17

In my house we axed the cable bill and just pay for internet so whatever I'm saving I spend on Netflix+Hulu plus+ Amazon Prime and whatever random stuff I buy or rent. I'm subscribing to Drive+ as a trial for now because I'm still well under my old cable bills.

Jacques L' Autre > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 17:56

I disagree with the concept of paying for specific channels. Sure I like to watch /Drive's content, but I also enjoy several other channels. If they all decide to charge a similar $3.99/mo then I'm going to be paying significantly more money for a product I used to receive free of charge. I would be more open if YouTube created a premium version, a YT+ if you will, and had a host of channels to choose from. I'm not against paying to watch things online, but when you're output is as little as /Drive+ is, for a little less than half the price of Netflix, then I don't see it as a good deal. Also if I really wanted to see all of /Drive's content I'd have to get a cable subscription, which is way more expensive than $3.99/mo, to truly see all that they're making.

Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 21:44

I don't mind paying if it seems reasonable, I hate this freemium crap with games now, I would much rather pay money once, than be nickel and dimed repeatly (I would be willing to pay $20 or more for real racing 3, its a great game, but I hate the freemium, so I modded the files and now have billions of money and gold). I would rather pay once, I am a teenager, and do lots of yard work for money, and I tell people that I work for, pay me what it is worth to you, and I usually do pretty well.

mcseanerson > Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
09/02/2014 at 21:47

That's a good work ethic! I agree with you on real racing 3. I loved real racing 2 but with 3 the freemium stuff is so annoying. I have purchased RR2 on two separate devices and would be willing to do the same with RR3 but it is just awful.

Axial > mcseanerson
09/02/2014 at 23:49

The real problem is that services like this always start off as "pay money, get some perks, no ads" and then always turn in to "pay money, still get ads."

Look at Hulu. Hulu+ doesn't remove ads, it merely reduces them. That's bullshit. How about Xbox Live? As if paying 50-60 bucks a year for a service that doesn't even offer dedicated multiplayer serves wasn't bad enough, now they have the gall to put ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE HOME SCREEN OF YOUR LOCAL SOFTWARE INSTANCE. ON YOUR MACHINE, A MACHINE YOU BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

So yeah. If I was somebody who watched /Drive (I don't, I don't watch much of anything), I'd pay for the service. As soon as they started trying to have their cake and eat it, too, with ads? I'm out. O-U-T OUT.

Advertisement is one of the most intrusive, pervasive, annoying, rage-inducing phenomenons of human society. Get out of my life, if I need your product I will go looking for it on my own.

mcseanerson > Axial
09/02/2014 at 23:55

Hulu never offered a version without ads. They are owned by all the big networks. It's just a way for them to cash in on this internet thing. If you think about it Hulu's business model is really smart because they don't host all the content all the time and stuff comes up as it airs so you can't just subscribe for a month, binge watch, and cancel it.

The Xbox ads on the other hand, that's just Microsoft being Microsoft. They have been trying to push that on Windows for years. One of these days everyone is going to leave them for Mac, or if people got really smart, Linux.

Axial > mcseanerson
09/03/2014 at 00:01

I thought Hulu+ started off as a way to get rid of ads and then morphed into what it is now, with the + merely getting you shows unavailable to free users. Either way, that's why I usually just buy what I want to watch on DVD/Blu-Ray.

Also, ads on Windows? Never seen it, and I've been using since 3.1. Maybe Windows 8, but only if you go into the Marketplace where, you know, it's appropriate. And I hope people don't switch to Apple because they are far worse than Microsoft. They'd not only just as soon shove advertisements down your throat, they'd also tell you what you can and can't like or buy and actively enforce it.

mcseanerson > Axial
09/03/2014 at 00:08

http://lifehacker.com/5963542/remove…

As for Mac being evil I have used Windows since 3.1 as well and I was using DOS before that. I have hated each Windows more than the last including 3.1 more than DOS with the exception of XP and 7 but that is mainly because ME and Vista were such steaming piles you couldn't really do worse. That said I like Windows alright and I like MacOS alright but what I like is how much less resource intensive and smoother MacOS is which is also the main thing about Linux I like.

There are ways around the things that Apple does just as there are ways around the things that Microsoft does. The only one that truly doesn't lock you down is Linux.

Axial > mcseanerson
09/03/2014 at 00:24

Hmm, I don't use Windows 8 apps so I've never experienced that. However, that crap is also on apps for any other platform, not just Windows/ Frankly, the idea of "apps" as has been popularized by iOS and Android is toxic. While I have 8.1 Pro installed on my PC (and it's actually been a real peach), I boot straight to desktop and never use "apps" of any sort. Only the same classic programs I always have. Thus, no ads.

Personally, I find OSX's UI to be garbage and utterly inefficient for work, especially the dock. I liked the way classic GNOME was set up, but their three home menus left something to be desired.