Comments on: Paying for multimedia: MediaStorm’s Pay Per Story scheme

By: Maggie Steber

Maggie Steber — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:54:52 +0000

David….regarding my tough response to people criticizing having to pay: only 2 people stated hesitation about whether charging to view would work. I was tough because of WHO said it. However, I’ll add this, it got more attention and though I can be gentle about most things, sometimes it is good to let people know when you feel strongly about an issue. At least in this case, I thought so. I certainly don’t want to frighten people or to bully them about this but, it’s a start to changing the way people think and that’s a good goal. Is it the final answer? Probably not but it’s a start. If we can use these two pieces that deal with critical issues about to swallow us alive in the US to begin to change the way people think about paying for this information–and here I’m talking about people in our own industry—as well as outside, then that’s moving something forward. Our worst naysayers are often people who are getting screwed for giving their work away for nothing. Thanks, Maggie Steber

By: Mark Esplin

Mark Esplin — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:54:58 +0000

I think the last paragraph is essential here. Media Storm have developed a strong following, and interesting discussions over their high completion rates suggests that they have successfully developed and engaged an audience that lends itself to the paid content mentality. As you suggest, this is not a universal strategy that is easily transferred to other production companies. But, hopefully they will prove successful and demonstrate that once you have dedicated time and effort into creating a community, the money will follow. Perhaps commercially funded projects, through advocacy campaigns etc can, in the short term, finance the long term business strategy supported through developing a community ‘for free’. The other interesting question for me is why they have not gone for advertisement. With so many viewers I’m sure ad revenue could be generated? It would be interesting, if only hypothetically to do a comparison between the two strategies. Either way, I hope it proves successful.

By: Who’s Gonna Pay For This Stuff?

Who’s Gonna Pay For This Stuff? — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:35:30 +0000

[...] Paying for multimedia: MediaStorm’s Pay Per Story scheme Pay Per Story is not a silver bullet strategy. It’s not a self-contained, all encompassing business model that’s going to right all that’s wrong with the editorial sector. [...]

By: The Digest – June 24th, 2012 | LPV Magazine

The Digest – June 24th, 2012 | LPV Magazine — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:02:30 +0000

[...] in the week, David Campbell wrote an excellent post about ‘paying for multimedia.’ I had the opportunity to sit down with him a month ago when he was in New York and had a great [...]

By: Gudgefilm

Gudgefilm — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:58:15 +0000

David thanks for the insight into MediaStorm’s effort. I direct a niche documentary series (“Deidox”) and have been wrestling with similar issues of trying to get people to pay for videos when online they’re used to getting videos for free. A few weeks ago we’ve settled on showing our films for free but charging if people want to download them. This is paired with a pitch that their download helps us tell more stories – bringing a little kickstarter mentality into it. That being said, our niche is “faith” and certain segments in the faith audience are accustomed to paying for content such as this if they are going to be showing it in a group setting.

Ah, the holy grail of a self-sustaining online audience for shortform media. I hope mediastorm finds it.

By: Chris Sinclair

Chris Sinclair — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:47:57 +0000

The sooner most commenters (photogs and news background visual journalists) consider themselves doc filmmakers and apply techniques and industry practice, the better. Short docs on iTunes have found payers for a while. The point of purchase looks different, but the content is the same. You’re right in saying that most are still applying journalism industry old hat rules to content that borrows the same tools but to different, longer-form, cinematic ends.