Why we need PBV

My research on equality in mathematics and consistency, and on logic may have paid dividends with the surprisingly obvious in retrospect latest non-math research into money itself.

The simple principle I'm emphasizing is value for value: we give value in exchange for value in return, which is how our world's money systems work.

A value gap has emerged on the web because the upfront pay model doesn't work for a lot of sources, including very important ones like news providers, but there is no pay after value system in place which is probably just an oversight, as the television model of advertising seemed viable at first, but doesn't work on the active system of the web in contrast to the passive system of television.

But the advertising model is also beginning to collapse on television as a result of people using DVR's to fast forward through commercials.

Television was never free. People paid with attention--to commercials. Now increasingly they're not paying attention, collapsing business models.

Without value for value, content must suffer, and as content on newspapers and television suffer then fewer people still will be there to provide value, causing a steeper drop in value, causing a steeper drop in revenue...a vicious cycle ending in the end of the businesses.

So these industries have no choice but to find a way to get value for value or they end.

I think for most people the reality that the television industry itself may end seems impossible, and I think that the industry will start looking hard for solutions long before that occurs, but then again it might not. We have the American auto industry's travails as a model for how that can occur.

So I think it important to consider the value for value concept that I call Pay Back Value with that in mind. The passive world of television presented this idea that paying attention, as commercials got buyers for goods, and the makers of the goods were the people who then paid directly for the television shows, was enough, but that hasn't worked in the same way on the web.

It may be up to information consumers to ask for the ability to pay for valued content after they've seen its value, for instance, after reading a news article, if they are to prevent valued industries from imploding on themselves, and I have an example to show how natural the concept is, as think of restaurants.

Fast food restaurants in the U.S. ask you to pay upfront. That is like what was tried on the Internet, and it mostly failed. People don't want to pay first for information that might be crap!

But beyond fast food restaurants, at higher end restaurants people can get their food, eat it, chat with company for a while, and ask for their bill and then pay.

We take that for granted so consider a story I have from years ago when I was living in metro Atlanta, when I went to a restaurant, and while eating my meal noticed a couple just get up and leave when the only server around--it was a slow period--went to the back of the restaurant.

I was in shock. I couldn't believe those people just got up and left! The server was upset but also more sanguine than I telling me that unfortunately that did happen at times.

But most of us don't take value in the form of a meal and just leave, even if the server isn't around, and restaurants do just fine though some people do steal meals.

Our web should offer the ability to pay like a high end restaurant versus the upfront pay model of the fast food restaurant, or the no pay model which isn't supporting value because ads are not enough.

Free is not a business model that works for the web, because advertising cannot support it for most. Some may do fine, but when even large newspapers with international appeal are going down, it's time to re-think the value issue.

We need to pay back value as information consumers. It's the only way for major industries we rely on for that information, to survive.


James Harris

Problem solving reality

To me problem solving is not an academic exercise and it's not about a particular area: problems are everywhere. Since I imagine myself to be a problem solver I can delve into any number of areas as I see fit, and while in the past I've focused a lot on mathematics and computer science, I've also been thinking about pop culture and practical issues like the conundrum of how to make money on the Internet.

That one has become ever more fascinating to me as I realize that there are very weird things about the Internet. For instance, taking the time to pause as I write this post and check Google Analytics about this blog (pausing) I find I have hits from 89 cities in 29 countries in the last 30 days. But a pathetic number of visits! 162.

What gives? I mean, before the Internet, talking about getting attention of any kind from 29 countries I'd think would be a big deal! But now it means nothing in terms of remuneration. Nothing.

Focusing on the problem then of value on the Internet I've come up with a new concept as a problem solving effort:

Pay Back Value concept

There are a couple of things that occur to me while considering this latest idea, as I think back to past ideas for which I had high hopes, like DMESE. And kind of wonder why I bother, but then again, why not?

Puzzles are puzzles not because they are easy and obvious. If they are easy and obvious then I say, they aren't really puzzling!!!

And I'm not the only one puzzling through the Internet money conundrum as I like to call it, as even big players are facing inordinate difficulty despite bringing a lot of value to the table.

I am mega international by the city and country counts for this blog according to Google Analytics. Yet this blog pales in comparison to my math one which in the last 30 days had hits from 450 cities in 59 countries (my country count dropped as I was at 61 a few days ago).

But how many visits? Only 1517.

For the year my math blog has had 5682 visits from 1220 cities in 93 countries.

Puzzling.

It's hard for me to understand how there isn't more monetary value in there somewhere, so the problem solving exercise is to puzzle out the conundrum--and deliver what ideas I may have to the world.

After all, solving my problems can solve those of others, and then it's the desired win-win.

For me proving my problem solving ability is not about a particular area--but about solving problems, and the Internet money conundrum is a big one.

About Quants

Link above goes to: The New York Times

Quote from the source:

SCIENCE
They Tried to Outsmart Wall Street
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: March 10, 2009
“Quants” try to use physics to untangle the messiest of human activities — making money.

Hard to categorize: Is it really economics? Really science? Not sure.

Siftables

Intriguing. David Merrill talks about and shows, siftables--smart blocks.

Getting serious about Sirius XM

Link above goes to: BusinessWeek

Quote from the source:

Sirius XM: What Price Bankruptcy?
Under Chapter 11, the satellite radio outfit could possibly revamp costly contracts. But it could also lose its top star and lots of listeners

By Olga Kharif

A bankruptcy filing by Sirius XM would have widespread implications not just for holders of the satellite radio company's debt and shares, but also for millions of listeners and for the celebrities like Howard Stern whose fat paychecks have made it harder for the company to pay its other bills....

It bugs me that I predicted an end to this company, when it was two, some while ago because it seems to me so preventable. (Oh yeah, I know they do have some ads.)

Maybe if they had followed a business plan more to my liking it would not have worked, but I like to think that what I said makes sense, so it makes me happy to believe that there is still time.

They need commercials.

Bad commercials are bad. But good commercials are good. People need a break from all that intensity and it gives them revenue.

I think we need satellite radio so I hope the best whatever answers they find.