upgraded members only: pure bullshit!

[pokesmot420]

so how long is it going to be before all revision3 content is for upgraded members only? i'd love to contribute and help out but i'm a starving artist and a broke ass college student on top of that. it is really necessary that one must pay to be able to watch sarah again?

this is just the first step. soon the "donations" will be depended upon and once they aren't getting enough or satisfied then more shows will cost money as well. mark my words.

420

[famousblueraincoat]

dude, just skip out on one 420 every week and you'd have enough to throw a little support to a new media startup. supporting rev3 has more to do with supporting new media AS A WHOLE, and not so much about getting to see shows sooner, or premium content.

wouldn't you rather support people that you trust can provide a decent level of entertainment and information? you might want to go troll the G4 forums instead then.

what you get here is manifested by and in a community, i think $50 a year isn't exactly a lot to ask for in that regard.

(with that being said, i am entirely with you on the point that if said community were to be taken advantage of, and/or is neglected for purposes of profit, i feel it completely right to bring it all in to question...)

[ryudo]

I am pretty damn broke myself ..hell I only work at gamestop and have rent and bills and I still somehow find a way to pay 5$ a month.

If you can afford pot you can afford 5$ a month.

[damianvonbarone]

The internet is vast my friends - It took me a google search and two or three clicks and i found both episodes for free. Digg has em. It's funny, the only content on revision3 that you pay for is Sarah's.:rolleyes:

[nimrauko]

Come on!
Really, how sad.
Point #1: I have no job, live on A VERY limited income (That I get for room mates living with me) and I can spare 5 bucks a month.

Point #2: Revision3 can not bring the great stuff that they bring to you with no income at all. Its a perk for those who contribute financially to get things that those who are either to lazy or incapable on contributing (For one reason or another) do not.

That is all.

*goes forth to watch the members only videos and sniggle at those who cant....*

[njshadow]

I guess I should post this here since my thread was locked. LOL.

Here's what I said: I find it kind of funny. A company pretty much founded on a piracy-type show (TheBroken) asking people to not pirate their shows (The Gazette, etc.). It's just kind of ironic and funny. What do you guys think about it?

[jigglebilly]

I guess I should post this here since my thread was locked. LOL.

Here's what I said: I find it kind of funny. A company pretty much founded on a piracy-type show (TheBroken) asking people to not pirate their shows (The Gazette, etc.). It's just kind of ironic and funny. What do you guys think about it?

yeah, if you want to be able to see more episodes of thebroken then spend the $5 and tell them that you support their show! Otherwise, just pirate the 3 1/8 episodes that are out...your logic is fatally flawed NJShadow.

[njshadow]

yeah, if you want to be able to see more episodes of thebroken then spend the $5 and tell them that you support their show! Otherwise, just pirate the 3 1/8 episodes that are out...your logic is fatally flawed NJShadow.

LOL, I already know that I'm not gonna see many more episodes of TheBroken. Jay said in an interview that that show would only be released on a "rare" basis or for special occasions. So giving $5 will NOT give us any more episodes.

[jigglebilly]

If you like something, why are you so against supporting it?

[njshadow]

If you like something, why are you so against supporting it?

I'm all for supporting it, just not in that way. Maybe if they actually did deliver TheBroken or shows like that I would fork over $5 but they don't. That's pretty much the show that got me into Digg, thus Diggnation, thus Revision3. I love all of Revision3's tech shows and I showed STRONG support in sharing the news with people in school and friends. But then seeing that "Nah, that's not good enough, fork over the $5 or no new shows for you." was kind of a slap in the face. It just didn't seem right. I understand that peope have gotta be paid, but Revision3 didn't get to this point through $5 donations or memberships. They got here because there was a strong community that supported their work and their vision. I still hope Revision3 does well and I DO support them. I just don't think that this was a good move on their part.

[jigglebilly]

They got here because there was a strong community that supported their work and their vision. I still hope Revision3 does well and I DO support them.

You have a good point, but what you're forgetting is that the people who started revision3 invested money out of their own pocket to make these shows and make virtually nothing off of them. If you want to see new and improved content $5 a month is not a lot to ask. And they're not MAKING you pay them either.

And as far as the assumption that Rev3 will make all their content member only is just insane. Kevin Rose knows the limits, he didn't get this far in the business to make a silly mistake. So just calm down and stop being so irrational....oh and you're really not missing much by not donating.

The reason i donate, is because they deserve it, they bust their asses to make quality content and if someone doesn't support them, it will go away.

If the only show you really like is thebroken, then dont donate :P no one here cares if you do or not

You make your own decision but $5 a month isn't much for what you get.

[esalonia]

Anyone who thinks paying 5$ a month for content is wrong, then dont pay it. But please stop whining like a child. The reason for paying the 5$ is simple, to support something you like. Those of us who pay the 5$ a month, deserve a little extra here and there for helping support them. They have a lot of shows (Most of them) which are totaly free. So I cant see how you can have a valid argument here.

Do you complain to your cable company that you can get tv shows with rabbit ears for free, so why should you have to pay them for more content (100's of channels)?

Seems like the same rationale to me...

[pokesmot420]

Anyone who thinks paying 5$ a month for content is wrong, then dont pay it. But please stop whining like a child. The reason for paying the 5$ is simple, to support something you like. Those of us who pay the 5$ a month, deserve a little extra here and there for helping support them. They have a lot of shows (Most of them) which are totaly free. So I cant see how you can have a valid argument here.

Do you complain to your cable company that you can get tv shows with rabbit ears for free, so why should you have to pay them for more content (100's of channels)?

Seems like the same rationale to me...

sorry but i don't have a phone or cable for one simple reason... i'm broke. i've been a tss/broken fan since way back and have never paid for their content before. so why am i asked to do it now if i wanna watch one show with sarah? why not do it with gigaom or webdrifter or another show? well the answer is they one day will. this is just a starting point, we'll see where it goes from here. revision3 has plenty of intelligent minds and plenty of sponsors and advertising. if there was a one time payment of five, ten even twenty dollars i'd do it. but a monthly fee, i think not! they are not asking for a donation when you have to pay it every month. it's called a subscription... big ****ing difference! digg has always been about the users, so give us the choice to donate and not force a monthly fee. let digg show us they care about its users and not the "donations"

ps. making comments and jumping to conclusions based on one's name before meeting them is pretty sad everyone.




...in another thread darknessgp writes...

From Wikipedia

"Donation is a gift to a fund or cause, typically for charitable reasons. A donation may take various forms, including cash, services, clothing, toys, food, accommodation, blood or new or used items. "

"The subscription business model is a business model that was pioneered by magazines and newspapers, but is now used by a myriad of businesses and websites. Rather than selling products individually, a subscription sells periodic (monthly or yearly or seasonal) use or access to a product or service, or, in the case of such non-profit organizations as opera companies or symphony orchestras, it sells tickets to the entire run of five to fifteen scheduled performances for an entire season."

Sounds like periodic early access to me. Plus, Rev3 currently offers no way for anyone to make a 1 time donation of any value. e.g. It's being called "Donation" when it is set up like a subscription. I say it is a subscription as we have no choice but to pay for a certain amount of time. If they offered the ability to give a 1 time donation, or re-occuring donation of any size, even if it didn't get the "membership" benefits then I would consider it a donation.

[blazes816]

One more time. Rev3 is a company that creates a product. No other company is going to give you free product because you don't have money. So why try here?

[masherscf]

i'd love to contribute and help out but i'm a starving artist and a broke ass college student on top of that.

I bet you collect all the empty beer cans from your dorm and redeem the deposits, you'll have at least $5/ month.

I've said it before, as a long time broke-ass college student, I don't believe it.

[phxfan]

I just don't understand why people have the entitlement mentality. It's entertainment, and it's not cheap for them. I have yet to find a source of entertainment that costs a lot of money to produce, yet offer it for free.

[masherscf]

I just don't understand why people have the entitlement mentality.

It's the Napster generation.

[tokenuser]

It's the Napster generation.

Yep.

http://blogs.business2.com/apple/images/2007/09/07/picture_10_2.jpg

[njshadow]

One more time. Rev3 is a company that creates a product. No other company is going to give you free product because you don't have money. So why try here?

Yeah, but don't ya kinda miss when it wasn't a "product"? A lot of that stuff really isn't necessary although I can see why they do it. Plus, Kevin and Alex don't look as relaxed as they used to on Diggnation.

[blazes816]

No. No I do not miss it.

[dj-silent]

I will say that I personally do not see 5 dollars worth it in the grand scheme on things since I pay 11 dollars a month and get 100+ tv channels and 1000's of shows. BUT I see that revision3 does have a lot of expenses especially with their new expansions. BUT they do make a big chunk of change off of individual sponsorship for shows. I personally do not think the members only thing will be forever, I think eventually they will be very similar to a TV network at just have ads for shows and not members only stuff, but that might be a cloudy mind and wishful thinking. If you aren't happy with revision 3's content (I am very happy with their content, as I pay nothing for it) then there are tons of more IPTV shows for you to watch, and plenty free over the air cable. including mine (shameless plug)

\/\/\/\/\/

[sarahlane]

I'm all for supporting it, just not in that way. Maybe if they actually did deliver TheBroken or shows like that I would fork over $5 but they don't. That's pretty much the show that got me into Digg, thus Diggnation, thus Revision3. I love all of Revision3's tech shows and I showed STRONG support in sharing the news with people in school and friends. But then seeing that "Nah, that's not good enough, fork over the $5 or no new shows for you." was kind of a slap in the face. It just didn't seem right. I understand that peope have gotta be paid, but Revision3 didn't get to this point through $5 donations or memberships. They got here because there was a strong community that supported their work and their vision. I still hope Revision3 does well and I DO support them. I just don't think that this was a good move on their part.

Hey NJShadow,
Where did you hear that Revision3 was demanding $5 donations for all new shows? That's not the case at all. Right now, the only "show" that is only available to our upgraded members is the Gazette. The Gazette was something that I put together as a way to give the folks who've donated money to us a little extra behind-the-scenes goodness. Although I'm flattered that people want to watch it, it's not meant to be a "slap in the face" to anyone. Think of Revision3 as a free concert.. you pay a little and maybe you get to go backstage. But you're still going to enjoy the music no matter where you're sitting.

Again, new shows on our horizon will continue to be free and available to the public as they always have been.

[dstewartx]

Any amount of money would help I would think. If you enjoy the site then I believe you should support it. Money is the best way.

[masherscf]

I'm all for supporting it, just not in that way. Maybe if they actually did deliver TheBroken or shows like that I would fork over $5 but they don't.

NJ, Jesus himself could come down from heaven and sit between Kevin and Alex and say "donate" and you would find an excuse not to. Either you get it, or you don't.

These donations are not made with an expectation of return.

It's really okay that you don't want to donate the Revision 3 that is. It has never been a requirement. I'm sure they appreciate you just watching.

[lee7822110]

Hey NJShadow,
Where did you hear that Revision3 was demanding $5 donations for all new shows? That's not the case at all. Right now, the only "show" that is only available to our upgraded members is the Gazette. The Gazette was something that I put together as a way to give the folks who've donated money to us a little extra behind-the-scenes goodness. Although I'm flattered that people want to watch it, it's not meant to be a "slap in the face" to anyone. Think of Revision3 as a free concert.. you pay a little and maybe you get to go backstage. But you're still going to enjoy the music no matter where you're sitting.

Again, new shows on our horizon will continue to be free and available to the public as they always have been.+1, Sarah Thanks for putting Gazette together, can't wait tell the next one comes out.:cool:

And big hug from me and Thanks for Gazette.(and as long as Revision3 puts more stuff out like this look for my $50 a year in the mail:cool::D)

[njshadow]

Hey NJShadow,
Where did you hear that Revision3 was demanding $5 donations for all new shows? That's not the case at all. Right now, the only "show" that is only available to our upgraded members is the Gazette. The Gazette was something that I put together as a way to give the folks who've donated money to us a little extra behind-the-scenes goodness. Although I'm flattered that people want to watch it, it's not meant to be a "slap in the face" to anyone. Think of Revision3 as a free concert.. you pay a little and maybe you get to go backstage. But you're still going to enjoy the music no matter where you're sitting.

Again, new shows on our horizon will continue to be free and available to the public as they always have been.


Oh no, I never said that Revision3 DEMANDED donations, I was just saying that that's not how they got to this point. They got here from loyal viewers who loved their programming and, of course, the even more loyal one's who actually donated. I was just using TheBroken as an example. And trust me, I still love the shows that you guys provide I guess it was just an odd situation that when they finally put a show that I was pretty eager to watch they made it members only. But that's ok. No problem here. And HUGE points for Sarah for being one of THE ONLY Revision3 hosts that actually check out and post on the forums! Way to go! :D

[arcticfox]

sorry but i don't have a phone or cable for one simple reason... i'm broke. i've been a tss/broken fan since way back and have never paid for their content before. so why am i asked to do it now if i wanna watch one show with sarah? why not do it with gigaom or webdrifter or another show? well the answer is they one day will. this is just a starting point, we'll see where it goes from here. revision3 has plenty of intelligent minds and plenty of sponsors and advertising. if there was a one time payment of five, ten even twenty dollars i'd do it. but a monthly fee, i think not! they are not asking for a donation when you have to pay it every month. it's called a subscription... big ****ing difference! digg has always been about the users, so give us the choice to donate and not force a monthly fee. let digg show us they care about its users and not the "donations"

ps. making comments and jumping to conclusions based on one's name before meeting them is pretty sad everyone.




...in another thread darknessgp writes...

From Wikipedia

"Donation is a gift to a fund or cause, typically for charitable reasons. A donation may take various forms, including cash, services, clothing, toys, food, accommodation, blood or new or used items. "

"The subscription business model is a business model that was pioneered by magazines and newspapers, but is now used by a myriad of businesses and websites. Rather than selling products individually, a subscription sells periodic (monthly or yearly or seasonal) use or access to a product or service, or, in the case of such non-profit organizations as opera companies or symphony orchestras, it sells tickets to the entire run of five to fifteen scheduled performances for an entire season."

Sounds like periodic early access to me. Plus, Rev3 currently offers no way for anyone to make a 1 time donation of any value. e.g. It's being called "Donation" when it is set up like a subscription. I say it is a subscription as we have no choice but to pay for a certain amount of time. If they offered the ability to give a 1 time donation, or re-occuring donation of any size, even if it didn't get the "membership" benefits then I would consider it a donation.
Whine, moan, complain... its not the end of the world, you dont NEED to see the Revision 3 Gazette, its not an essential its a luxury, do you go into a shop and whine that you cant afford luxury items?

No so jog on.

I dont expect stuff for donating like i am, but its nice to see that we are being rewarded for supporting Revision 3, you dont like that then go to another online "tv network" and watch all their varied and interesting programming. Oh wait you cant...

[pokesmot420]

it's just funny that they call something a donation but make it mandatory for upgraded customers. they then try to justify this "donation" by providing a new show to those users only. they didn't need to have the show and demand a subscription fee for it. it is not a donation, it's a subscription fee.

plus they don't look like they need all of our money with the sponsors they have. not to mention all the money they are throwing around purchasing the top of the line equipment, office space, etc... they should try to work with what they need and then they wouldn't have to "ask" for donations. i'm all up for donating but when the only choice i have is to lock into a monthly fee i think not. revision3 is past the point of dependency on viewers. they are a big enough company now and have enough sponsors to purchase anything they want. once again i'm not against donations but why not give people the option of how much and how often to donate?

try not being to close minded for once and ask yourself why they would call it a donation force you to give every month? why aren't they just happy with any donations? that's the real question.

[therage800]

It's plain and simple. Revision3 owns the content, therefore they can do what they want with it. Including charging for it. I pose a question to those who have a problem with the subscription fee (I do agree that it's a subscription fee and not a donation, although there are those who's intention is to donate) Why do you believe Revesion3 doesn't have the right to do what they want with there own property?

[davesecx]

it's just funny that they call something a donation but make it mandatory for upgraded customers. they then try to justify this "donation" by providing a new show to those users only. they didn't need to have the show and demand a subscription fee for it. it is not a donation, it's a subscription fee.

plus they don't look like they need all of our money with the sponsors they have. not to mention all the money they are throwing around purchasing the top of the line equipment, office space, etc... they should try to work with what they need and then they wouldn't have to "ask" for donations. i'm all up for donating but when the only choice i have is to lock into a monthly fee i think not. revision3 is past the point of dependency on viewers. they are a big enough company now and have enough sponsors to purchase anything they want. once again i'm not against donations but why not give people the option of how much and how often to donate?

try not being to close minded for once and ask yourself why they would call it a donation force you to give every month? why aren't they just happy with any donations? that's the real question.

You really don't get it. I don't care if its called a donation fee, subscription fee, or give you first born to Kevin Rose fee. If you don't want to pay any money to them, then don't. Also, don't act like you know all the financial matters of Rev3. You don't know how much money it costs to produce the shows and pay the hosts. If you really feel that upset about the $5 "fee" and not being able to watch 1 show because of the fee, then watch something else. No one is being forced to pay the $5 and if you do pay it, you can stop paying whenever you want. Its not difficult to understand. We all understand that you don't approve of their methods. So, please stop complaining. If you want to see Sarah so bad, go on youtube and watch videos of her there.

Personally, I am happy to pay the $5 every month, because I appreciate everything this site does. $5 is a small amount to give back to a site and a group of people who give us so much enjoyment and knowledge about stuff.

[tokenuser]

There is a funny thing about something being a donation ... its not compulsory. You don't have to pay it.

If you do, you receive a thankyou gift.

Rev3 are good like that.

[steamboy741]

I have no issue with paid subscribers getting early downloads and High Def video. I understand that through subscribers support Rev3 is able to make some extra money. I know 5 bucks a month isn't that much, but eventually someone can only have so man 5's, 10's, and 15 bucks a month subscription frees before you have to chill out with the monthly payments.

I have never had a problem waiting for Diggnation's public release. I always look forward to the general release day. I knew there were other, non official, places to get the show, but I waited. I waited so I could help support Rev3. I have always Downloaded the shows from the Rev3 website. The Downloads by us petty non subscribers as well as the subscribers are what give Rev3 the numbers they take to Sponsors to get money for the shows. Without the support of Both the Subscribers and Non Subscribers there would be no Rev3. So why ignore Us non subscribers? I wouldn't mind waiting a few days or even a week to see the new shows. But to just be completely denied some of the new content says one thing to me: My support means nothing. I wonder how long Rev3 would be around if the Non subscribers quit downloading the videos?

[davesecx]

I have no issue with paid subscribers getting early downloads and High Def video. I understand that through subscribers support Rev3 is able to make some extra money. I know 5 bucks a month isn't that much, but eventually someone can only have so man 5's, 10's, and 15 bucks a month subscription frees before you have to chill out with the monthly payments.

I have never had a problem waiting for Diggnation's public release. I always look forward to the general release day. I knew there were other, non official, places to get the show, but I waited. I waited so I could help support Rev3. I have always Downloaded the shows from the Rev3 website. The Downloads by us petty non subscribers as well as the subscribers are what give Rev3 the numbers they take to Sponsors to get money for the shows. Without the support of Both the Subscribers and Non Subscribers there would be no Rev3. So why ignore Us non subscribers? I wouldn't mind waiting a few days or even a week to see the new shows. But to just be completely denied some of the new content says one thing to me: My support means nothing. I wonder how long Rev3 would be around if the Non subscribers quit downloading the videos?

Its ONE show. Why even have subscriptions if there is no benefit to it. When you see these PBS donation telethons every now and then, don't you see how they have gifts for the people who call in and donate money? This is no different. Its a bonus to the paying members of the site. If you really want to see the Gazette, then you can pay for it. If you refuse to pay, then I am sure your life will not end if you don't see the show.

I cannot believe the uproar that having ONE member only show seems to be causing. Also, I can't see more than a super tiny % of people stop watching all Rev3 shows because they don't want to pay to see one of the shows. That is just silly to think that.

[masherscf]

But to just be completely denied some of the new content says one thing to me: My support means nothing. I wonder how long Rev3 would be around if the Non subscribers quit downloading the videos?

Why do you feel entitled to see everything Revision 3 produces? Because you watch all the free content? So, you take what they give out for free and you feel that entitles you to everything. Do you realize how screwed up that sounds?

Revision 3 releases hours of free media a week. All of it quality, most of it kicks serious ass and some of it is the best video available on the internet. From that, all but R3G is given to you completely without obligation what-so-ever. If there is anyone in this relationship with a righteous sense if entitlement, it is Revision 3.

Revision 3 is entitled to release their content in whatever manner they choose, free, a delayed public release, a subscriber exclusive or just Powncing it around the office.

[steamboy741]

Its ONE show. Why even have subscriptions if there is no benefit to it. When you see these PBS donation telethons every now and then, don't you see how they have gifts for the people who call in and donate money? This is no different. Its a bonus to the paying members of the site. If you really want to see the Gazette, then you can pay for it. If you refuse to pay, then I am sure your life will not end if you don't see the show.

I cannot believe the uproar that having ONE member only show seems to be causing. Also, I can't see more than a super tiny % of people stop watching all Rev3 shows because they don't want to pay to see one of the shows. That is just silly to think that.


Yes PBS takes Donations, but PBS also doesn't have Adds. REV3 does have adds, thanks in part to loyal down loaders like myself. You don't have to pay to watch shows on Network TV because They have adds.

Also I didn't say people would stop watching the shows because of having to pay to see one. When I said "I wonder how long Rev3 would be around if the Non subscribers quit downloading the videos?" I was just pointing out the fact that with out the Downlaoders there would be no Sponsors.

[steamboy741]

Why do you feel entitled to see everything Revision 3 produces? Because you watch all the free content? So, you take what they give out for free and you feel that entitles you to everything. Do you realize how screwed up that sounds?

Revision 3 releases hours of free media a week. All of it quality, most of it kicks serious ass and some of it is the best video available on the internet. From that, all but R3G is given to you completely without obligation what-so-ever. If there is anyone in this relationship with a righteous sense if entitlement, it is Revision 3.

Revision 3 is entitled to release their content in whatever manner they choose, free, a delayed public release, a subscriber exclusive or just Powncing it around the office.


REVISION3 CLOSES $8 MILLION SERIES B FINANCING ROUND
http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7254

Deals like this would not be possible without one thing HIGH DOWNLOAD numbers. These numbers come from both Subscribers and non subscribers. So why not allow all the people that DL the content and support REV3 the content? We are all responsible for REV3's success. The founders for coming up with a great Idea and shows, and the viewers for DLing the shows.

With out a doubt REV3 can do what ever the crap they want with their content. But the content only has any value so long as it has a fan base to view it.

[atom12]

The more I watch this thread the more floored am I am by this selfish, gimme, entitlement mentality that plagues so many today. There not charging you a dime for any of their full run, all out productions. They make it available freely and mark MY words they always will.

Granted I am new to being a registered user, but I am far from new as a Revision3 viewer/forum lurker. Folks have been donating for quite sometime now without getting anything other than Diggnation a few days early. Hardly worth 5 dollars in and of itself in my opinion, but lots of folks did donate. Why? Because they felt the whole of Rev3 was worth donating $5 a month for.

I look at The Rev3 Gazette as a thank you to the die hard supporters (which would be those shelling out cash when they don't have to) and a way to encourage more to donate, it was all I needed to get me to donate. Why? Because I AM a big enough TechTV/Rev3 fan/freak that I WANTED to see Sarah and her behind the scene antics. That's all your missing, some way inside jokes and peeks of what is coming, not a fully produced show.

If it matters that much to you cough up some cash. $5 a month or $50 a year is well worth it for the quality of content Rev3 produces and the level of entertainment I get from it. Arguing anything else makes you look like a selfish child to any reasonable person with half a modicum of common sense.

You want free? Stick to over the air broadcast on your TV set. I guarantee you get what you pay for. :mad:

So stop crying about it, it just shows us what spoiled children you are. Now if you will excuse me ,I gotta go watch both episodes of the Rev3 Gazette for the 15th time. :cool:

[phxfan]

it's just funny that they call something a donation but make it mandatory for upgraded customers. they then try to justify this "donation" by providing a new show to those users only. they didn't need to have the show and demand a subscription fee for it. it is not a donation, it's a subscription fee.

plus they don't look like they need all of our money with the sponsors they have. not to mention all the money they are throwing around purchasing the top of the line equipment, office space, etc... they should try to work with what they need and then they wouldn't have to "ask" for donations. i'm all up for donating but when the only choice i have is to lock into a monthly fee i think not. revision3 is past the point of dependency on viewers. they are a big enough company now and have enough sponsors to purchase anything they want. once again i'm not against donations but why not give people the option of how much and how often to donate?

try not being to close minded for once and ask yourself why they would call it a donation force you to give every month? why aren't they just happy with any donations? that's the real question.

It's 5 bucks a month.....fact is people would only donate once or twice probably if it was an at will donation. Couple that with there being no way to predict any kind of revenue stream with at will/anytime donations and it doesn't seem like a big deal to me as a consumer.

And it's not a new show really, just a behind the scenes thing.

Maybe you're just a little more cynical than some. I don't think they would be asking for donations if sponsorship was making them millionaires. And if they were all millionaires from the revenue they generate via sponsorship, then I guess I might have a little beef with that as well.

[masherscf]

REVISION3 CLOSES $8 MILLION SERIES B FINANCING ROUND
http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7254

Deals like this would not be possible without one thing HIGH DOWNLOAD numbers. These numbers come from both Subscribers and non subscribers. So why not allow all the people that DL the content and support REV3 the content? We are all responsible for REV3's success. The founders for coming up with a great Idea and shows, and the viewers for DLing the shows.

With out a doubt REV3 can do what ever the crap they want with their content. But the content only has any value so long as it has a fan base to view it.

My judgment stands. The return you get for watching Revision 3 content is the hours of free entertainment. You deserve nothing more or less. You watch the shows because you enjoy them. Also, People who donate also are not entitled to extra content, control or ownersip over anything Revison 3 produces. The subscriptions are a donation, given without an expectation of return. However, to encourage and reward subscriptions, Revision 3 releases exclusive and early content. This very classy. Many podcasts sites ask for donations and don't offer any benefits. Neverthless, the subscription benifits are not an entitlement.

Therefore, people who do not choose to donate are not second class listeners. Their ears are 100% just as important. Revision 3 doesn't love them any less. It's not a personal slight. It's not like Revision 3 held a big party and didn't invite them. They simply don't get the benifits of having a subscription

If you are entitled to benefits from your merely watching, why is it so hard to swallow Revision 3 extending benefits to people who subscribe? Don't they deserve a return for their money? And, if they are to give their own cash without expectation of return, why should you expect more just for watching? Why assume an entitlement, when you don't recognize that the media has any value?

(BTW, these questions are rhetorical, don't answer them)

As a matter of truth, the practice of charging a fee and carrying advertising is a well accepted practice. Cable TV does it, magazines do it and even movie theatres do it. Heck, they don't let you ride on the subway for free just for reading the ads. And, anyone who thinks Public Broadcasting doesn't have ads doesn't watch much Public TV. The Mcdonald's commercials that book-end every broadcast of "Sesame Street" can atest to that.

The facts don't really fit the "I watch, so I expect..." version of reality.

[iccanui]

http://symbianguru.typepad.com/welcome/images/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

Ramen noodle packs are 99 cents for 6 now. Eat cheap for a week and give to the people making your life better with this content.

Outie.

[tokenuser]

Yes PBS takes Donations, but PBS also doesn't have Adds. REV3 does have adds, thanks in part to loyal down loaders like myself. You don't have to pay to watch shows on Network TV because They have adds. Sure PBS has ads ... although they call them "Sponsors". Ever watch an episode of "This Old House" or "New Yankee Workshop" which is brought to you by "Delta" or "Porter and Cable"? They only show these sponsor messages at the beginning and/or the end of the show, but they are definately there.

[masherscf]

Ramen noodle packs are 99 cents for 6 now. Eat cheap for a week and give to the people making your life better with this content.

Outie.

Is not the interminable battery of a cadaverous equus caballus the very avocation of an internet forum?

And, Raman sucks...

[rayjay1999]

All I need to say is Stop Whinning. You Could have only G4tv and we all know what happened to that? $5 is $5. What do you want for them to go off and have you Pay a Dollar a month for the Content? I think you don't get why they do this? Ad's only pay so much. They are Doing this full time. How can they pay for there Studio plus filming Equipment plus Salaries? our Subscriptions Contribute to that. :)

[iccanui]

Is not the interminable battery of a cadaverous equus caballus the very avocation of an internet forum?

And, Raman sucks...


eh, the right flavor isnt bad. Beef is my fav. but if that doesnt work for you, wendy's has a 99 cent value menu.

Point is, you can find 5 bucks a month. There is no excuse other then " i dont want to " cause you spend on other things. Just saying this defense of " i cant " is BS.

Anyway, im out of this topic, i said my peace long long ago.

Peace all.

[masherscf]

Point is, you can find 5 bucks a month. There is no excuse other then " i dont want to " cause you spend on other things. Just saying this defense of " i cant " is BS. .

Oh, I'm completely in the "I can't afford $5, is bullshi+" camp. Five dollars is completely reasonable. Ten dollars would be real money though. I can get behind not affording that.

I was recently amused by the recent SYSTM episode where they computed that if you merely turned your PC off at night, you would save $7 a month. I thought, "Send the money to Revision 3!"

[tokenuser]

I was recently amused by the recent SYSTM episode where they computed that if you merely turned your PC off at night, you would save $7 a month. I thought, "Send the money to Revision 3!"Computers have an off switch? Damn.

[tomorrowlan]

I'm sorry, but I have to say some of the pure ignorance in this thread is insulting. Stop calling it whiny.

Yes, it's Revision3's content. Yes, they can charge for it. Does that make the opinion that it's wrong to charge for it invalid? NO. It's an opinion.

I'm not from the Napster generation. I have plenty of money. I even believe in donating. I do not believe in giving special content to the people that donate and not to those that aren't. I thought it was fair to issue content early to those that support. A nice bonus. But, see, you aren't keeping anything from people that don't donate. That's the difference.

I see his point that this could seem to be a prelude to a true subscription service. Pay per view, no other way to put it.

So, while it's not a huge slap in the face, it is a disappointment. By making content only accessible if you pay, even if it is only one show (for now), it does feel like it's going against the spirit of the guys that teach the masses how to screw over Blockbuster because they've been screwing you. I do see the point there.

No, I'm not whining about it, I am however voting with my wallet and not donating again. Because I don't think it's right. Go back to giving it to donating members early, not actually segregating content.

[masherscf]

I'm sorry, but I have to say some of the pure ignorance in this thread is insulting. Stop calling it whiny

No, I'm not whining about it, I am however voting with my wallet and not donating again. Because I don't think it's right. Go back to giving it to donating members early, not actually segregating content.

<irony> I'm sorry, but I have to say some of the pure ignorance of this post is insulting... </irony>

You know, you try to make some valid points, but your opening completely ruins in. Unless you're a one-post troll, there's no valid reason to open a post by insulting the previous posts. Indeed, you wanted to say "stupid", but you were afraid the trolling nature would be more obvious if you did.

Anyhow, you should read the forum rules before you post again.

Indeed, you're attempting to dispel the previous posts by labeling them "ignorant." This is a lame tactic as bespeaks as someone unsophisticated trying to sound so.

In any case, your post doesn't address the central issue of assumed entitlements of certain viewers: Just why it is a "slap in the face" to offer exclusive content.

Despite your claims to "have money" and "Believe in donation" you don't deny the root of the charge. You express the same unwarranted entitlement over content that the rest of the "whiners" do.

You said you thought it was "unfair" to offer exclusive content to subscribers. But, you never reason fully exactly why you feel it's unfair. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it based on some former business model that we are unaware?

Although, you claim to believe in donations. Your claims of disparity do not support the value of donation. Therefore, I find this claim disingenuous.

Indeed, the entire tone of your preamble is disingenuous, because the logical conclusion of your main thesis denies it.

Like saying, "I'm not shallow, but I don't believe in dating ugly chicks..."

I suspect to you just included the prefunctory statement in order to deflect criticism on those grounds.

My specific questions to you, which you should answer without resorting to accusations of "ignorance", "stupidity" or "lack of personal hygiene," are as follows. Notice, both questions have given parameters that can't be ignored in to give a desired answer.

If the viewers of Revision 3 content don't have a initial entitlement to watch all the content Revision 3 produces, why is it "unfair" to offer content to those who donate?

If the viewers of Revision 3 are entitled to watch content, why are subscribers who watch equally and donate actual cash not entitled to extra content?


My last observation has to do with advertising. The media in question is R3G. It carries no advertisements.

Lets beat this horse some more, gentlemen.

[atom12]

<irony> I'm sorry, but I have to say some of the pure ignorance of this post is insulting... </irony>

You know, you try to make some valid points, but your opening completely ruins in. Unless you're a one-post troll, there's no valid reason to open a post by insulting the previous posts. Indeed, you wanted to say "stupid", but you were afraid the trolling nature would be more obvious if you did.

Anyhow, you should read the forum rules before you post again.

Indeed, you're attempting to dispel the previous posts by labeling them "ignorant." This is a lame tactic as bespeaks as someone unsophisticated trying to sound so.

In any case, your post doesn't address the central issue of assumed entitlements of certain viewers: Just why it is a "slap in the face" to offer exclusive content.

Despite your claims to "have money" and "Believe in donation" you don't deny the root of the charge. You express the same unwarranted entitlement over content that the rest of the "whiners" do.

You said you thought it was "unfair" to offer exclusive content to subscribers. But, you never reason fully exactly why you feel it's unfair. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it based on some former business model that we are unaware?

Although, you claim to believe in donations. Your claims of disparity do not support the value of donation. Therefore, I find this claim disingenuous.

Indeed, the entire tone of your preamble is disingenuous, because the logical conclusion of your main thesis denies it.

Like saying, "I'm not shallow, but I don't believe in dating ugly chicks..."

I suspect to you just included the prefunctory statement in order to deflect criticism on those grounds.

My specific questions to you, which you should answer without resorting to accusations of "ignorance", "stupidity" or "lack of personal hygiene," are as follows. Notice, both questions have given parameters that can't be ignored in to give a desired answer.

If the viewers of Revision 3 content don't have a initial entitlement to watch all the content Revision 3 produces, why is it "unfair" to offer content to those who donate?

If the viewers of Revision 3 are entitled to watch content, why are subscribers who watch equally and donate actual cash not entitled to extra content?


My last observation has to do with advertising. The media in question is R3G. It carries no advertisements.

Lets beat this horse some more, gentlemen.

Amen :cool:

[samureye]

<irony> I'm sorry, but I have to say some of the pure ignorance of this post is insulting... </irony>

You know, you try to make some valid points, but your opening completely ruins in. Unless you're a one-post troll, there's no valid reason to open a post by insulting the previous posts. Indeed, you wanted to say "stupid", but you were afraid the trolling nature would be more obvious if you did.

Anyhow, you should read the forum rules before you post again.

Indeed, you're attempting to dispel the previous posts by labeling them "ignorant." This is a lame tactic as bespeaks as someone unsophisticated trying to sound so.

In any case, your post doesn't address the central issue of assumed entitlements of certain viewers: Just why it is a "slap in the face" to offer exclusive content.

Despite your claims to "have money" and "Believe in donation" you don't deny the root of the charge. You express the same unwarranted entitlement over content that the rest of the "whiners" do.

You said you thought it was "unfair" to offer exclusive content to subscribers. But, you never reason fully exactly why you feel it's unfair. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it based on some former business model that we are unaware?

Although, you claim to believe in donations. Your claims of disparity do not support the value of donation. Therefore, I find this claim disingenuous.

Indeed, the entire tone of your preamble is disingenuous, because the logical conclusion of your main thesis denies it.

Like saying, "I'm not shallow, but I don't believe in dating ugly chicks..."

I suspect to you just included the prefunctory statement in order to deflect criticism on those grounds.

My specific questions to you, which you should answer without resorting to accusations of "ignorance", "stupidity" or "lack of personal hygiene," are as follows. Notice, both questions have given parameters that can't be ignored in to give a desired answer.

If the viewers of Revision 3 content don't have a initial entitlement to watch all the content Revision 3 produces, why is it "unfair" to offer content to those who donate?

If the viewers of Revision 3 are entitled to watch content, why are subscribers who watch equally and donate actual cash not entitled to extra content?


My last observation has to do with advertising. The media in question is R3G. It carries no advertisements.

Lets beat this horse some more, gentlemen.


That was a smackdown if I ever did see one.

[tomorrowlan]

I'll take these one at a time if you don't mind....

<irony> I'm sorry, but I have to say some of the pure ignorance of this post is insulting... </irony>

You know, you try to make some valid points, but your opening completely ruins in. Unless you're a one-post troll, there's no valid reason to open a post by insulting the previous posts. Indeed, you wanted to say "stupid", but you were afraid the trolling nature would be more obvious if you did.


If I didn't hate being an atypical copycat, I'd put either hypocrisy or arrogance tags around your opener there. Since you opened your post with an insult, and then follow it with a statement of there being no valid reason to open a post that way.


Also, I'm obviously not a one post troll, as 1) here I am again and 2) troll don't make points, or talk about them in general, they usually just insult for the sake of starting an argument. I'm here defending the argument that was already going on.

And, no, I didn't mean stupid, I did mean ignorant. The words have different meanings and I'm fairly certain, since I wrote the post, which one I meant.

Anyhow, you should read the forum rules before you post again.

Done. Would you care to comment on what rule I have broken that you, and most others in this thread haven't?

Indeed, you're attempting to dispel the previous posts by labeling them "ignorant." This is a lame tactic as bespeaks as someone unsophisticated trying to sound so.


No, I wasn't dispelling the previous posts by labeling them ignorant. I was expressing an opinion that over zealous fans like to shout down decent with labels like whiner. And if you read through the majority of the posts here, very few deal with all his comments, and more about him whining, about expecting things free, and about how little the value of $5 a month is. Very little about the change in model (thank you Sarah Lane for addressing the issues though, even if I don't agree with the change).

If you would like to see good examples of lame, please check out those full quotes with the 'what he said' style answers.

In any case, your post doesn't address the central issue of assumed entitlements of certain viewers: Just why it is a "slap in the face" to offer exclusive content.

Despite your claims to "have money" and "Believe in donation" you don't deny the root of the charge. You express the same unwarranted entitlement over content that the rest of the "whiners" do.


Sorry, I thought I did explain it. I'll try again. I don't like the idea of Revision3 changing the model. They have an established model of not charging for content. They have an established model of delivering some content early to people that donate. They do not, until now, have a model where there is a segregation of content. In my opinion, this one show is now the model of subscription based content.

The established model of Revision3 is the entitlement I'm speaking of. They have never "charged" for their content. Also, I've clearly stated (at least I thought it was clear) that it is their content. They do have the right to charge for it. But as a consumer of it, I also have the right to express my displeasure with it, just as you do with any unwarranted (in your opinion) of goods you are a consumer of. Look at it like this: Gas prices go up, you don't see any reason they should, especially given what you think about oil company profits. You have the right to express your opinions on it, no? Their oil, they own it. You don't have to buy it, you can always walk or ride a bike or distill it yourself if you have the know-how and resources. But that doesn't make it right. Or maybe you think it is, I don't know.

As for denying and claiming anything. Huh? There was no root of any charge at me to deny. I simply stated that I think this change in model is wrong, and like any good consumer, I'm going to vote with my wallet. I will no longer donate. Yes, I've donated to Revision3 (and TWiT and others, because I'm a fan). Yes, I've seen the show. It doesn't change my opinion that I think it's wrong to segregate content, and that while Sarah Lane has denied it here, it "could" be a first step to a shift in the model for other content, other new shows. Which was one of the first points brought up here and rarely addressed.

You said you thought it was "unfair" to offer exclusive content to subscribers. But, you never reason fully exactly why you feel it's unfair. Is it just a gut feeling? Is it based on some former business model that we are unaware?


It's an opinion. As for the "former business model", how can you be unaware? Have you not experienced the business model here? I'm not saying it was never in the plan to start charging for content, I wouldn't know any better than you would. I'm saying that the model that was being followed has now changed. Or do you disagree that it's been modified?


Although, you claim to believe in donations. Your claims of disparity do not support the value of donation. Therefore, I find this claim disingenuous.

Indeed, the entire tone of your preamble is disingenuous, because the logical conclusion of your main thesis denies it.

Like saying, "I'm not shallow, but I don't believe in dating ugly chicks..."



You can find it disingenuous, but you are wrong. Yes, that's easy to say, but hey, all you've done here is say "you are full of it, I don't believe you" in a very eloquent way. "because the logical conclusion of your main thesis denies it." - that's pretty funny actually. Because if my conclusion is logical, it can't deny it.

Basically, what I'd like to know here is, what is your premise? Where have I said "I'm not shallow" and where have I said "but I don't believe in dating ugly chicks..."?? Please, draw this analogy out for me. Because for the life of me, I can't find the part where you can equate to my not dating ugly chicks. Unless that's the part you are making an assumption about, based on the fact that you take me to be disingenuous?

I suspect to you just included the prefunctory statement in order to deflect criticism on those grounds.

By pointing out the fact that I have donated, and that it has nothing to do with the money, yes, I was trying to avoid the "BS, you just want it for free" argument. Alas, I failed because I just wasn't ernest enough in my prose I guess.

My specific questions to you, which you should answer without resorting to accusations of "ignorance", "stupidity" or "lack of personal hygiene," are as follows. Notice, both questions have given parameters that can't be ignored in to give a desired answer.

No problem at all. I love direct questions. Those are the easy ones to answer.

If the viewers of Revision 3 content don't have a initial entitlement to watch all the content Revision 3 produces, why is it "unfair" to offer content to those who donate?


To your question, as asked, I'd say simply: it's not.

However, I don't agree with your premise. I believe we, the viewers of Revision3, do have an initial entitlement to watch all the content. My belief, as stated previously, is based upon the model under which Revision3 has been operating for so many months. This is not a legal entitlement, by any means. I'm not trying to imply that. They are under no obligation to continue under the old model. But, since it is a change, I can disagree with it. No?

If you want or need an analogy (I love analogies) this, to me, is like the store that gives my daughter a lollypop every time I shop there. They've done this for years. Now, under new management, they say she has to pay $0.25 for it. Now, when you are spending $75 a week at this little market, that's not a lot of money. But I have to say that I would be pissed if they really did change that model and want me to start paying. And I'd shop somewhere else. Not because I can't afford the quarter. But because I don't like the change in service. Yes, they have every right to change it. But I also felt entitled to that bit of customer service. Why? Because they provided it to me for so long. And I'd gladly pay double for that lollypop elsewhere, and shop elsewhere, just to be a good consumer.

If the viewers of Revision 3 are entitled to watch content, why are subscribers who watch equally and donate actual cash not entitled to extra content?


Ok, this one is because my opinion of a "donation". I do not believe that donating to the police officers association and putting the sticker on my back window should get me out of a ticket any more than anyone else. I do not believe that because I donate to PBS (which I do not do enough honestly) that I should be able to tell them what content to provide me.

However, I do believe that I should be able to tell my cable company, whom I subscribe to, what channels they should provide me.

You see, once you are provided more content for your money, I don't see it as a donation anymore, I see it as a subscription.

As to a previous example of getting some little gift back when donating to PBS, I'd like to say 1) that's conditional upon larger gifts; 2) it doesn't change what content will be on the station; 3) I don't agree with the practice there either.

My last observation has to do with advertising. The media in question is R3G. It carries no advertisements.

Yes. And to that, I'll add exactly what I added previously. So far. The concern as expressed in the first post here is, where will it lead.

[tomorrowlan]

That was a smackdown if I ever did see one.

Then I'll hazard the guess that you've never seen one. That wasn't even round one.

[trench]

I thought it was worth the $5 alone just so I could get Diggnation on Saturday nights without have to keep hitting refresh on the pirate site. R3G is a nice little additional perk.

And why shouldn't subscribers/donaters be rewarded? We're the ones actually giving back to Rev 3.

If you can't afford $5 a month then maybe you need to get a real job.

[tokenuser]

As to a previous example of getting some little gift back when donating to PBS, I'd like to say 1) that's conditional upon larger gifts; 2) it doesn't change what content will be on the station; 3) I don't agree with the practice there either.http://blogs.business2.com/apple/images/2007/09/07/picture_10_2.jpg

Would you feel better if instead of additional content, that as a "subscriber" you got a T-Shirt like the one above?

BTW the "subscribers" don't seem to whine as much as the non-subscribers ... because they understand the concept.

I actually think that all the non-subscriber bi7ching about additional content should all visit this site (http://www.realcaliforniacheese.com/) ... because even Kevin will tell you that cheese goes well with whine.

[tomorrowlan]

Would you feel better if instead of additional content, that as a "subscriber" you got a T-Shirt like the one above?
QUOTE]

No, because like I just posted. I don't think there should be any gifts.....

[QUOTE=tokenuser;204848]BTW the "subscribers" don't seem to whine as much as the non-subscribers ... because they understand the concept.

Which part of the "I am stopping (and therefore was) donating" did you miss?

I understand the concept of donations. I do not agree with the model shift to donations.... Can I say it any clearer?

[samureye]

Then I'll hazard the guess that you've never seen one. That wasn't even round one.
I recall you saying you have "a lot of money" so if that is the case...donate and get your extra content. Sadly, I'm not entering this debate again. Actually it's not a debate, more of a whine-fest. In the end, a company is deciding how to put out their content and I see no problem with that.

[davesecx]

I would say that the free lollipop example that tomorrowlan provided would lead to the logical conclusion that he stops watching Rev3 content since he doesn't agree with having a show for donating members.

I still cannot believe people are so upset that they cant watch the R3G for free. It just boggles my mind. The idea that its wrong to change their business model because its been this way for months to me is just absurd. Maybe I am just too easy going, but when there are two clear choices: 1) Pay and watch, 2) dont pay and dont watch the extra content, it seems pretty petty to ***** about not getting everything for free.

[tomorrowlan]

I recall you saying you have "a lot of money" so if that is the case...donate and get your extra content. Sadly, I'm not entering this debate again. Actually it's not a debate, more of a whine-fest. In the end, a company is deciding how to put out their content and I see no problem with that.

Yet a differing opinion, no matter how well thought out is nothing but a "whine-fest".

I feel obliged to assume you didn't actually read what I wrote, based upon your comments above. Sadly, you can't actually enter a debate if you don't take into account what the other side is saying.

[tomorrowlan]

I would say that the free lollipop example that tomorrowlan provided would lead to the logical conclusion that he stops watching Rev3 content since he doesn't agree with having a show for donating members.

I would disagree, since in the analogy, I'd still be shopping, and consuming those same goods. Just not paying that same market for them. More accurately, my analogy would lead to me downloading the same content from another source. And just not paying Revision3 for it.

I still cannot believe people are so upset that they cant watch the R3G for free. It just boggles my mind. The idea that its wrong to change their business model because its been this way for months to me is just absurd. Maybe I am just too easy going, but when there are two clear choices: 1) Pay and watch, 2) dont pay and dont watch the extra content, it seems pretty petty to ***** about not getting everything for free.

I've not once, ever, ******* about not getting everything for free. I have merely stated that, in my opinion, it's wrong to change from a donation to a subscription model, and that, as the first poster said, I'd worry that it would be the start of a trend.

Sorry if you think my opinion is absurd. But hey, I think your attitude is as well. After all, if everyone thought like everyone else, we'd have no choices at all.

[davesecx]

I would disagree, since in the analogy, I'd still be shopping, and consuming those same goods. Just not paying that same market for them. More accurately, my analogy would lead to me downloading the same content from another source. And just not paying Revision3 for it.



I've not once, ever, ******* about not getting everything for free. I have merely stated that, in my opinion, it's wrong to change from a donation to a subscription model, and that, as the first poster said, I'd worry that it would be the start of a trend.

Sorry if you think my opinion is absurd. But hey, I think your attitude is as well. After all, if everyone thought like everyone else, we'd have no choices at all.

But, the founder of Revision3 has said multiple times that they will not be charging for other shows?! I don't see where you get the idea that because 1 show is only available to paying memeber that it automatically means other shows will be only available that way as well?

[tomorrowlan]

But, the founder of Revision3 has said multiple times that they will not be charging for other shows?! I don't see where you get the idea that because 1 show is only available to paying memeber that it automatically means other shows will be only available that way as well?

Which of the founders would that be? Because I haven't heard any of them say that they wouldn't be charging for "other" shows. But I may have missed it, so please link me if I did. I had heard them in the past make references to the fact that they would never charge for shows, but that seems to have gone out the window with this, in my opinion. Which is where I get this idea.

[davesecx]

Which of the founders would that be? Because I haven't heard any of them say that they wouldn't be charging for "other" shows. But I may have missed it, so please link me if I did. I had heard them in the past make references to the fact that they would never charge for shows, but that seems to have gone out the window with this, in my opinion. Which is where I get this idea.

Here.

As the founder of Revision3, let me get something off my chest.

Revision3 was founded with a simple vision: Internet-based television can work, without the restrictions, censorship and corruption that exists in traditional television. The creators of this content, bypassing the Hollywood system, can also make a living doing it.

Kevin came to me once and said, "Man, there is so much I would love to do on video, but I can't do it on T.V."

I proposed to him that I thought a business could be created, and that sponsors would pay to be on videos that were born out of the unencumbered efforts of people like him. I proposed that there was an audience for almost any repeat, serial, episodic video, and the trick was finding it.

I think at Revision3, we've proved that this audience not only exists for niches, they are much larger than television can do with its washed-out, dumbed-down television for the masses.

In short, there was a business here. Not volunteer, user-generated content, but a real, fund-able, profitable business to be built. That means costs and revenue. Studios and editing suites. Producers and writers. Yes, even a finance department.

When we started with Systm, and later Diggnation, we knew it was going to be an uphill battle. Originally we needed donations to help us stay afloat, so (literally) Kevin, Dan, David, Ron, Keith...and later Alex, and others, could get by without another "day job." Loyal fans helped us, and for that we are forever grateful. We had many people we had to pay, and we barely scraped by.

Once we proved the model was working (though we still have a while before we are profitable), we were able to get venture funding. Getting funded isn't just money to burn: It's part of a complex, detailed business plan where in theory, you get to positive, free cash flow (spend less than you earn) before you run out. Being venture funded isn't a license to not make money.

Meanwhile, the memberships grew. Over the past year, the question was asked, how do we reward the members who helped us get here? I agree that Revision3's general content will always be free. However, for those fans who want something extra, particularly for those who have helped us get to where we are, we wanted to reward them with something.

Our normal shows will be free for everyone. I think it's fair for us to give people who pay us a monthly fee something extra, and doesn't corrupt our business or principles.

One final note: The people who bypass the memberships, who love our content, are sending a message that they want memberships to go away. At least that is how we interpret it. How do you, the fans, feel about that?

Anyway... Know that our principles aren't compromised, and we're the same Revision3 we've always been. "Being corporate" was part of the goal, if you consider corporate meaning a real, operating business. However, anyone who visits Revision3 will tell you: The atmosphere there is far from dry, boring, cube life. This is not your grandad's cube farm. This is fun.

-Jay

Normal shows will always be free. Thats what Jay said. Its also hard to say in this kind of business that something will always be a certain way. You don't know what the future brings and thing can and most likely will change. I would hope most people understand this, and if that means more member only shows, then so be it. Its not the end of the world.

[rowlodge]

start different show, just free, problem solved.

[phatlip12]

Everyone is acting like this is something new. Revision3 mentioned offering special video to paying members back on the OLD Revision3 site.

Besides the peace of mind knowing you are helping support our efforts to bring you great content, we will provide extras for members, such as early direct-download access to our content, sneak peaks, special videos, and special website areas. We're running on overdrive right now to get our episodes available. For now, we'll start with early access to our content, but more is coming!

Proof (http://web.archive.org/web/20060721071439/http://revision3.com/donate)

Nothings changed, there simply finally acting on their original plan.

[leftkidney]

It's plain and simple. Revision3 owns the content, therefore they can do what they want with it. Including charging for it. I pose a question to those who have a problem with the subscription fee (I do agree that it's a subscription fee and not a donation, although there are those who's intention is to donate) Why do you believe Revesion3 doesn't have the right to do what they want with there own property?

correct me if I am wrong but I thought that Rev3 was making stuff for "us" the fans of stuff KR and AA and others do and have done in the past

so is it the property of Rev3 or is it for "us" the community to do what we want with it (except sell it)



really unless they charge for other stuff I dont care that much yea it sucks but like Sarah Lane said it is like the backstage thing at a concert

maybe after the office is built they would have it for everyone

[masherscf]

I'll start this post with a prayer.

*forgive me, oh lord, my typos... I have to take my daughter to school and don't have time to proofread*


You can find it disingenuous, but you are wrong. Yes, that's easy to say, but hey, all you've done here is say "you are full of it, I don't believe you" in a very eloquent way. "because the logical conclusion of your main thesis denies it." - that's pretty funny actually. Because if my conclusion is logical, it can't deny it.

We're cool T-lan. BTW, Welcome to the forum. Despite our initial disagreement here, I like you.

Your opinions are politely and sincerely expressed. Thank you for that. I did mean my post to sound snotty. I was hoping to draw you out.

But, I'm tired of this argument. People disagree about Revision 3 trying to promote their subscriptions. I understand that. If you poke around, there is a lot of people who don't like it. The purpose of sites like ********.com was to sabotage the subscription model. We get a lot of "one-post-wonders" stopping by and trashing it. I'm glad to see that you're not one of them.

You're right about a few things. Despite a reluctance to admit it in some circles, Revison3 has changed. However, I think those changes are for the better. You've heard the joke about them releasing another "Broken" or "SYSTM" sometime after Apple merges with Microsoft. This is no longer the case. Revision3 is alive and productive. The shows they're producing are original and high quality. The "two guys on a couch" vid-cast model that has been copied so much is not what Revision 3 is anymore.

If you're not feeling it, donation is not required.


I'm going to derail th thread now.

A point of logic. Any statement can be made. It's either true, false or neither. When the status of s statement is unknown is called a conjecture. A statement cannot be true or false, It's called a paradox. For example, "Everything I say is a lie." Anyhow, I'm glad you has a laugh.

[samureye]

Yet a differing opinion, no matter how well thought out is nothing but a "whine-fest".

I feel obliged to assume you didn't actually read what I wrote, based upon your comments above. Sadly, you can't actually enter a debate if you don't take into account what the other side is saying.

I recall you saying you have "a lot of money" so if that is the case...donate and get your extra content. Sadly, I'm not entering this debate again. Actually it's not a debate, more of a whine-fest. In the end, a company is deciding how to put out their content and I see no problem with that.

You go get 'em, Captain Obvious!
I consider it *****ing because: a) a business is being operated, you are telling a business HOW it should operate.
b) You are paying NOTHING and the only grounds for you to complain is if you were paying and not getting your money's worth, in which case you could make suggestions on how to improve or NOT pay.

Being well thought out doesn't mean what you say has to have merit, which your argument had none of, upon first glance.

*bows out*