TheHeretic said:
You alluded to this being a bad business decision, which is spurious because the only real alternative revenue stream is advertising, which they rely on already. Thats what I responded to, so I don't even know what this post really means.
I literally have no clue what the conversation is about at this point. A guy quoted another guy, I quoted him, he quoted me, I quoted him, you quoted me, I quoted you, you quoted me, and now I'm quoting you.
I disagree with trying to get users to pay for content. I don't use the content in question, so I don't give a shit about GiantBomb doing this. I download every GiantBomb Quick Look and don't use the site otherwise.
In terms of making money, there are several alternatives. Advertising, voluntary donation, or sales of non-content physical stuff (IE merchandise) all of which has generally worked well for a variety of sites over the years. You can use all three at once. You can also use all three and a pay-wall (SomethingAwful, for example, uses all four of those business models and does so very successfully). Historically advertising has been the most successful web model. There aren't really many great examples of pay-walls working. IGN is not a successful example.
Just because they have advertising now doesn't mean that they're doing it optimally. Maybe more advertising, maybe smarter advertising, maybe looking for a different demographic or different sponsor companies. Maybe their sales reps suck. I also think it's worth considering changing the kind of content. Maybe some kinds of content cost a lot of money to produce and cannot be monetized by advertising at all. Maybe they should do fewer podcasts. Maybe, like 1up was, they're paying too much in staffing and content production costs. Maybe, like many content sites, investors had initially assumed profitability after a certain number of years and now either that projection is looking less likely or the investors are in a worse position and want profitability sooner.
Obviously the people running the business end of Whiskey Media feel that this is the decision that is most likely to lead to success. Maybe they've correctly read their audience, maybe they haven't. Maybe this will lead simultaneously to decreased goodwill and increased revenue. No one saying this isn't a good idea financially is asserting that they know Whiskey Media's balance sheet. Maybe charging for content is a good idea but they've screwed up the specific price.
I don't think "Because they are doing it, it is a good business move" or "This is obviously a last resort, if they don't try this they won't exist anymore" are good arguments whenever any company does anything. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. I don't think "If you don't like it, don't pay for it" is a good argument whenever any company does anything. This is a discussion forum, people are allowed to express their opinions, including that they're not going to pay or that they don't use GiantBomb and still disagree in principle with the change.
I think I've addressed all the angles of everyone who's replied to me.
