- Oct 3, 2018
- 809
- 565
I'm not sure that comparison is a good one. Palmer is not out to build giant customer bases like, say, a fast food corporation, doesn't issue stocks and shares, etc. The content makes it a niche market. While it's important to try to remain interesting and become of appeal beyond an existing clientele, the scale is much smaller, the circle (strangely perhaps) more personal.(...)
Not necessarily.
Let's say I run a business. There are investors who get dividends from the success of the company. So far we're making profits but if I take a risk there's a possibility I could make a lot more money. Market research says its a good idea. However, the investors don't want to take the chance
Who do you trust? The people who don't know your business but know the market, or the investors who'd rather keep making a return on their money?
The fact is you have to take both and weigh your options. You can't ever just listen to one side of the table, especially if that table is agreeing with you. I understand that Palmer thinks that's what's he's doing, I'm simply asking about the purpose of the comparison. The two sides think differently. And? Is it supposed to make us rethink our positions just because the people that pay for the product liked it? As I already said, it's not surprising that there's less deviation amongst people who enjoyed the story enough that they were already willing to pay for it. (...)
You must be registered to see the links
You must be registered to see the links
I think the gist of this fable is good. An ancient tale, but no less relevant for that, I think:
You must be registered to see the links
Apart from that, Palmer has responded further, so having expressed a view and tried to clarify it, I'll conclude that view here.