You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: SMT Testnet is LIVE
Who told you that? Journalism? Books? Movies? When has this been the case? Confusing your post.
Who told you that? Journalism? Books? Movies? When has this been the case? Confusing your post.
Salvador Dali and Van Gogh -> dependent on maecenas
Stephen King -> his “rejections nail” is legendary which merely means the publisher didn’t see any opportunity in the content attracting. Same with every book ever rejected by a publisher (didn’t believe it would sell sufficient).
This has always been the case about creation. That particularly you never knew that baffles me.
That isn't how it works in the US. I don't know what you are citing. Do you have some sources?
Can you please elaborate on “it”, because that’s how publishing [words] works.
If you’re a journalist, you are whether employed/assigned[transaction!] to write a piece about a topic the publication wants covered or you pitch a story and the editor will assess whether they think it has value [if you pitch a movie to Amazon or Netflix, value can possibly also be whether it will sell more subscriptions, like the recent “El Camino” may have resulted in Breaking Bad fans returning to Netflix or any movie/series released by Amazon is yet one more reason to subscribe to Amazon Prime).
If you’re a book author, you pitch and the publishing house will assess on whether they think it will generate revenue [yes, some publishing houses also assess based on snobbery first].
If you’re a (self-publishing) blogger, you have a toolkit available nowadays which has democratized access to [transactions] ads. The topic often defines the eCPM. If you’re a hired gun, your employer [hopefully] makes the content transactional (ads, services, products).
If you run a popular tech blog you will have a higher eCPM than with a blog about... writing. But with the latter you can sell consulting services [making content transactional].
Please elaborate “it” in “how it works” because I have a background in publishing. The words you publish are not worth more than when they are written on a piece of paper and stuck on a lantern pole unless... a mechanic makes them transactional. Sales, services, signups are all possible methods to make the words worth something financially.
In the context of crypto... failing transactional token utility content is the same as the wealthy owner family. Philanthropy.
The WAPo was loss making but family owned until recent acquisition. Little more than a century ago, Hearst expanded his “yellow journalism empire” and could thus sell more display units [making content transactional]. Initially, his expansion was backed by family capital though. But it made his publications less dependent on local advertisers only, because he could sell display units in multiple publications interstate. At the same time, he also owned a large part of the “life cycle” of publishing being a large scale forester. Thus he could purchase paper cheaper than others, the combination of all which allowed him to hire away Pulitzer winners and some of the best authors in modern literature.
Because he sold.... ads on cheaper paper.
All of that is making content “transactional”. Without that it’s philanthropy or the maecenas story. Or maybe I don’t know what US you are referring too because there’s capital flow behind every word published. At least targeted.
Bonus edit: Perfect modern times example is Medium and its struggles to become break even, let alone profitable. Interestingly enough, that struggle is a red wire through Ev Williams’ internet career (blogger sold web space and domains yet wasn’t profitable, twitter wasn’t profitable in his time, Odeo most even don’t know he had a venture between Twitter and Blogger, and Medium’s struggles despite $132m VC funding are well documented.
The three examples I briefly replied to above, all have reference examples merely a keystroke away.
You can sell directly to the reader or consumer.
You can sell directly to the reader or consumer. Crypto makes it even more sophisticated because you can sell content in a different way. We just haven't seen these platforms become innovative yet with derivatives which is what I'm suggesting in my posts.
That’s still making your craft [words] transactional. You sell.
But we agree, as I saw in another comment of yours: shitcoins backed by nothing.