I have run into a similar problem on one of my current contracts, where they own whatever I produce, leading me to be very careful about what sort of insights I offer. In such cases, you’re right, the reasonable approach is to offer detailed specifics but not new lines of thinking.

Interesting point that the companies get great value out of the discussion itself, just like we learn things through blogosphere back and forth. And it’s free! So perhaps it’s hasty to say that $50 can’t buy you considered opinion. In-depth research for a c-note? Perhaps not, but maybe the market for that will evolve, and thoroughgoing research will be compensated appropriately.

I’m CEO of Techdirt and just wanted to clear up some of the issues raised by your post. Kevin was wrong in stating that bloggers simply get $50 to $100. As you suggest, it is a market place. The bloggers get to set their own prices. Kevin had asked what the typical price was — and so far, $50 to $100 seems to be the range that people are choosing. And, based on that, I should say that I 100% disagree with you that at $100 you don’t get “in-depth research or considered opinion.” You’d be amazed at the level of analysis and opinion the bloggers in the program have already been giving.

Also, almost all of the feature suggestions that you make are already in the program, or are on the roadmap to be added soon (your first point, of ordering the responses to determine payments, is on the roadmap — all the other features are already available).

As for the anonymity issue, that’s only one aspect of the service, and came from specific discussions with both bloggers and our existing customers. There are a ton of advantages in having the anonymity — from more honest analysis, to actually responding to the issue rather than the company (i.e, telling a company what they want to hear as opposed to what they need to hear). However, again, that’s only one aspect of the service, and some of the offerings will allow discussions without anonymity in place. It all depends on what the bloggers and the companies need for the particular issue they’re raising.

Finally, the focus is very much on better value for your dollars, not “cheaper.” In the beta tests we’ve been running, that’s exactly what we’ve found. The companies (multi-billion dollar ones) that have been using the service feel they’re getting a lot more value in seeing multiple different perspectives and analysis (including discussions *among* and *between* the various bloggers) than just talking to “the wise man on the hill” at some analyst or consulting firm.

If you have any more questions about the service, please feel free to ask me.

Mike

As for whether the blogger-analysts should have some level of anonymity, that’s an open issue. There are questions of how honest the analysts feel free to be, how much they are subject to influence that might distort their opinions, and whether external factors like outside reputation might affect their reputation in the analysis marketplace in such a way that inefficiency is introduced. In general, open and transparent seems better and more web2.0ish. But it’s not clear that the dynamics would be the same, better, or worse than if all parties were anonymous. How can the market be made most efficient and produce the most value? How does anonymity play into that? It’s a new world–maybe some experimentation needs to be done to see what works best.