I just replied to someone and gave the following illustration, which I'd like to expand upon, because I think it's worth discussing.
Take a popular blog like Copyblogger (no connection, unfortunately). According to Google, the domain has been around since February 2006.
That's just three and a half years. A baby, in the Internet world.
And yet it currently has nearly 70,000 RSS and email subscribers.
If Brian Clark (the founder, I believe) were to sell up today, what do you think that blog would be worth?
Personally, I'd hate to hazard a guess, but I'm guessing that $100,000 would be an insult. (I imagine someone would be willing to pay a lot more for it.)
What made it what it is today?
First and foremost, it was, and is, the CONTENT. Without the content, it wouldn't be much of anything.
Now, let's say, for argument's sake, that he's posted every week day for the past three and a half years.
5 articles a day, 52 weeks a year over 3.5 years is 910 articles.
It took 910 articles to build Copyblogger into what it is today. If it sold for a mere $100,000, that is...
Over $109 an article.
Folks, how much do you value CONTENT?
Now, I appreciate that other factors make it valuable, such as backlinks. Yahoo! says he has nearly HALF A MILLION!
But one of the main reasons people link to it in the first place is because of the content.
So I ask again... how much do you value your content? Are you still trying to skimp on article costs?
I ask this question because some people think that $x or $y is too high a price for an article.
But if Brian Clark sold up today, he'd probably get - at a bare MINIMUM - the equivalent of about $109 an article.
What would YOU pay for that kind of return, per article?
By focusing just on the short term costs (and perhaps skimping on quality to save a few initial bucks), might we be missing the bigger picture?
What do you think? Am I on the right track? Or am I hopelessly lost in a sea of idealism?