Comments for Korr Values http://korrvalues.com "Other things deserve blogs too" Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:37:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ Comment on More on Ticketfly’s service charges by Ty Garfield http://korrvalues.com/2010/01/13/more-on-ticketflys-service-charges/#comment-13620 Ty Garfield Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:37:44 +0000 http://korrvalues.com/?p=806#comment-13620 Hello Josh, I work for Brown Paper Tickets, so while I can comment on #4, the remainder of your questions will have to wait for another response from Damon from Ticketfly. The only difference between ticketing and retailing online is the product. This is obvious but ticketing only represents the authority to participate or view an event. You can't eat a ticket (well, not in a literal sense) or play games on it. It's costs of production are relatively low and handling is pretty simple. A ticketing provider is contracted to distribute and handle the ticketing transactions of a promoter, producer or venue. So, we don't pay the talent, rent the facility, take out the trash or sell concessions. We sell the tickets. And in my experience the fees and convenience charges you were charged are a means to maximize profits at the expense of the producers and consumers of events. Let's face it exorbitant or "downright absurd" fees literally represent a barrier to entry. That is changing. As far as alternatives go, we are a better choice of primary ticketing. We have a mission at Brown Paper Tickets, to fix the industry. We're doing this by empowering the producers of events and facilitating the purchase process. What does THAT mean? Ninety-nine percent of our services are free for producers to use. If you need bulk tickets or to rent ticket scanners, we do need to charge for those but it's much more affordable than our competitors. So anyone can ticket any event. To list an event and start selling tickets costs the producer nothing. This motivates them to do more events. To the ticket buyer we offer the lowest fees in the industry: Ninety-nine cents for tickets under $9.99 or less, or $1.99 if the ticket price is $10 and up. That's it. That's all we charge, 99 cents or $1.99. Not getting gouged for tickets makes it easier to buy more tickets to more of the events producers can ticket for free. See how sinister we are? We have been at this for 10 years and have gotten really good at ticketing events. And while the margins are small in event ticketing, shouldn't they be? We provide better service (including 24/7 phone support and free mailing - USPS in the United States) at a very reasonable cost. In fact we LOWERED our service from from 99 cents + 2.5% of the purchase price last fall. Okay this posting is kind of marketing-y. But honestly, $8.75 for a $20 ticket? C'mon. I'm loathe to say it - but that's just not fair and the industry needs to catch up. Hello Josh,
I work for Brown Paper Tickets, so while I can comment on #4, the remainder of your questions will have to wait for another response from Damon from Ticketfly.
The only difference between ticketing and retailing online is the product. This is obvious but ticketing only represents the authority to participate or view an event. You can’t eat a ticket (well, not in a literal sense) or play games on it. It’s costs of production are relatively low and handling is pretty simple. A ticketing provider is contracted to distribute and handle the ticketing transactions of a promoter, producer or venue. So, we don’t pay the talent, rent the facility, take out the trash or sell concessions. We sell the tickets.
And in my experience the fees and convenience charges you were charged are a means to maximize profits at the expense of the producers and consumers of events. Let’s face it exorbitant or “downright absurd” fees literally represent a barrier to entry. That is changing.
As far as alternatives go, we are a better choice of primary ticketing. We have a mission at Brown Paper Tickets, to fix the industry. We’re doing this by empowering the producers of events and facilitating the purchase process. What does THAT mean? Ninety-nine percent of our services are free for producers to use. If you need bulk tickets or to rent ticket scanners, we do need to charge for those but it’s much more affordable than our competitors. So anyone can ticket any event. To list an event and start selling tickets costs the producer nothing. This motivates them to do more events.
To the ticket buyer we offer the lowest fees in the industry: Ninety-nine cents for tickets under $9.99 or less, or $1.99 if the ticket price is $10 and up. That’s it. That’s all we charge, 99 cents or $1.99. Not getting gouged for tickets makes it easier to buy more tickets to more of the events producers can ticket for free. See how sinister we are?
We have been at this for 10 years and have gotten really good at ticketing events. And while the margins are small in event ticketing, shouldn’t they be?
We provide better service (including 24/7 phone support and free mailing – USPS in the United States) at a very reasonable cost. In fact we LOWERED our service from from 99 cents + 2.5% of the purchase price last fall. Okay this posting is kind of marketing-y. But honestly, $8.75 for a $20 ticket? C’mon. I’m loathe to say it – but that’s just not fair and the industry needs to catch up.

]]> Comment on In defense of the Pulitzer Prizes by Josh Korr http://korrvalues.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pulitzer-prizes/#comment-13597 Josh Korr Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:27:42 +0000 http://korrvalues.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-13597 Thanks, Jeff. It would be an interesting experiment if SPJ regional chapters replaced or supplemented their traditional awards for a year with "readers choice" type of awards. I suspect that in some (many?) cases, readers would honor the same stories SPJ judges would have selected. Thanks, Jeff. It would be an interesting experiment if SPJ regional chapters replaced or supplemented their traditional awards for a year with “readers choice” type of awards. I suspect that in some (many?) cases, readers would honor the same stories SPJ judges would have selected.

]]> Comment on In defense of the Pulitzer Prizes by Jeff Good http://korrvalues.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pulitzer-prizes/#comment-13596 Jeff Good Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:42:15 +0000 http://korrvalues.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-13596 Great commentary, Josh. My vote would be to keep the Pulitzers as the Oscars of journalism -- i.e. the only real national contest -- and to replace most of the other national and regional contests with the sort of "readers choice" awards suggested by Jeff Sonderman. That would provide a nice blend of perspectives. Great commentary, Josh. My vote would be to keep the Pulitzers as the Oscars of journalism — i.e. the only real national contest — and to replace most of the other national and regional contests with the sort of “readers choice” awards suggested by Jeff Sonderman. That would provide a nice blend of perspectives.

]]> Comment on In defense of the Pulitzer Prizes by Josh Korr http://korrvalues.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pulitzer-prizes/#comment-13342 Josh Korr Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:16:11 +0000 http://korrvalues.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-13342 That sounds like a nice middle ground to me :) That sounds like a nice middle ground to me :)

]]> Comment on In defense of the Pulitzer Prizes by Jeff Sonderman http://korrvalues.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pulitzer-prizes/#comment-13341 Jeff Sonderman Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:11:50 +0000 http://korrvalues.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-13341 I appreciate your very detailed look into this, Josh. I don't think we'll find truth at either extreme here. No newsroom can honestly say it cares nothing for awards. Also no newsroom is crafting it's entire enterprise budget around the available awards categories. I think most of us can agree though that it is very important to keep these awards in perspective. Journalism should be measured by the readers it serves and the impact it has, regardless of awards it receives. Award, from Pulitzers down to your local SPJ chapter, are fine for calling attention to good work. But journalists should place more stake on how readers respond, not a panel of judges. I would like to see a massive "Reader's Choice Awards" developed where the users vote on the best investigations and breaking news of the year. I appreciate your very detailed look into this, Josh.

I don’t think we’ll find truth at either extreme here. No newsroom can honestly say it cares nothing for awards. Also no newsroom is crafting it’s entire enterprise budget around the available awards categories.

I think most of us can agree though that it is very important to keep these awards in perspective. Journalism should be measured by the readers it serves and the impact it has, regardless of awards it receives. Award, from Pulitzers down to your local SPJ chapter, are fine for calling attention to good work. But journalists should place more stake on how readers respond, not a panel of judges.

I would like to see a massive “Reader’s Choice Awards” developed where the users vote on the best investigations and breaking news of the year.

]]> Comment on How to fix newspapers I: What is news? by In defense of the Pulitzer Prizes « Korr Values http://korrvalues.com/2008/02/17/how-to-fix-journalism-i-what-is-news/#comment-13340 In defense of the Pulitzer Prizes « Korr Values Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:43:12 +0000 http://korrvalues.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-13340 [...] for the Post to widen its selection of stories. Like most papers, the Post may not have done enough rethinking of the kinds of stories it covers and how to better reach today’s audience. But that’s [...] [...] for the Post to widen its selection of stories. Like most papers, the Post may not have done enough rethinking of the kinds of stories it covers and how to better reach today’s audience. But that’s [...]

]]> Comment on Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological by A canonical reading list for the future of news http://korrvalues.com/2010/01/30/objectivity-isnt-truthful-its-pathological/#comment-13297 A canonical reading list for the future of news Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:50:22 +0000 http://korrvalues.com/?p=832#comment-13297 [...] Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological When the good-intentioned pursuit of truth leads the truth-seekers to lie (to themselves, to readers; by inclusion or omission) rather than break their code, there’s probably something wrong with the code. [...] [...] Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological When the good-intentioned pursuit of truth leads the truth-seekers to lie (to themselves, to readers; by inclusion or omission) rather than break their code, there’s probably something wrong with the code. [...]

]]> Comment on Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological by This Week in Review: Google’s new features, what to do with the iPad, and Facebook’s rise as a news reader | Mark Coddington http://korrvalues.com/2010/01/30/objectivity-isnt-truthful-its-pathological/#comment-13057 This Week in Review: Google’s new features, what to do with the iPad, and Facebook’s rise as a news reader | Mark Coddington Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:51:59 +0000 http://korrvalues.com/?p=832#comment-13057 [...] Haiti. This week, two broadsides against objectivity — one by Publish2’s Paul Korr calling it pathological, and another by former foreign correspondent Chris Hedges saying it “killed the news.” Both [...] [...] Haiti. This week, two broadsides against objectivity — one by Publish2’s Paul Korr calling it pathological, and another by former foreign correspondent Chris Hedges saying it “killed the news.” Both [...]

]]> Comment on Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological by links for 2010-02-15 « Onlinejournalismtest's Blog http://korrvalues.com/2010/01/30/objectivity-isnt-truthful-its-pathological/#comment-13040 links for 2010-02-15 « Onlinejournalismtest's Blog Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:03:06 +0000 http://korrvalues.com/?p=832#comment-13040 [...] Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological « Korr Values (tags: objectivity bias) [...] [...] Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological « Korr Values (tags: objectivity bias) [...]

]]> Comment on Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological by links for 2010-02-08 | Beyond the Echo Chamber http://korrvalues.com/2010/01/30/objectivity-isnt-truthful-its-pathological/#comment-13028 links for 2010-02-08 | Beyond the Echo Chamber Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:00:59 +0000 http://korrvalues.com/?p=832#comment-13028 [...] Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological « Korr Values "…a healthy journalism and healthy public discourse — not to mention healthy journalists — are better served by a professional-intellectual framework of honesty, transparency, and expertise (or, in Dan Gillmor’s formulation, thoroughness/accuracy/fairness/transparency) than by one ultimately built on lies and extreme cognitive dissonance." (tags: beyondtheecho bias) [...] [...] Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological « Korr Values "…a healthy journalism and healthy public discourse — not to mention healthy journalists — are better served by a professional-intellectual framework of honesty, transparency, and expertise (or, in Dan Gillmor’s formulation, thoroughness/accuracy/fairness/transparency) than by one ultimately built on lies and extreme cognitive dissonance." (tags: beyondtheecho bias) [...]

]]>