FierceCIOFierceCIOTechWatchFierceMobileITFierceContentManagementFierceGovernmentIT   FierceComplianceITFierceHealthITFierceFinanceIT

Micropayments certainly won't hurt

Last week, I wrote a post called Could micropayments save the news business? I was being a bit provocative of course. I don't believe any one idea is going to save the news business or provide reliable income for online content providers who are looking for a steady (any) income stream, but I don't necessarily agree with Robin Wauters, who wrote in TechCrunch recently:

"Information is now a commodity, so deal with it. And yes, it should be free to end users."

I don't believe it's quite that simple. All information is not created equal. Certainly news has become a commodity of sorts, but even there, if you offer a higher level of quality, and dare I say accuracy, do you have a right to charge a little for the content? How about if you take it a level above the run of the mill offerings out there. If you're reporting what everyone is reporting, sure it should be free, but if you have analysts and reporters who can dig deeper to find underlying stories, would the public pay for that? Would there be a market for "premium content?" I think there could be, even if it's a small one.

In the end, micropayments alone probably won't save journalism or online content in general. There are too many free options, but even if just a small, loyal base of subscribers is willing to pay for that extra stuff, it could be part of a diversified income stream that helps traditional print publications (and other online publishers) make money. As Seth Godin wrote recently in the blog post "Too Much Free," free content begins to lose its intrinsic value after a while. Could charging a small fee restore that value?

A few years ago, a local college decided to lower its prices to be more affordable. What it found was that fewer students applied because they equated the lower cost with lower quality. Perhaps online content providers could learn a lesson here and find that there is a market out there somewhere for paid content, too. We won't know until we try, and there is certainly nothing lost by experimenting with different models.

For more information:
- see Robin Wauters Tech Crunch post on Micropayments

SHARE WITH:
Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn StumbleUpon
Get Your FREE FierceContentManagement Email Newsletter:
Comments (2) | Post a comment

Comments

I'm with you that not all information is commodity, and there's a reason people still continue to pay for information, albeit less so than in the past. But I continue to be skeptical about micropayments. Clearly a "micro" payment suggests that the individual units of information aren't that valuable. And yet people balk disproportionately at such decisions. I'm more persuaded by bundling / subscription models that don't distribute the pain over a myriad independent buying decisions. Read Kahneman, Tversky, and others from the behavioral economics literature to see the research results on how people make such decisions.

I'm inclined to believe that people will pay for certain content. For instance, I think people would pay for eBooks, special reports, unique content. As for how much, Micro means, I think it's as little as pennies and as much as $10 or so. Would people pay for an exclusive interview with Bono or Chris Martin or Bruce Springsteen? How about if they included a free MP3 download from the latest album with it (or an exclusive clip)? It will take creativity, but it's certainly possible and it doesn't have to exclusively live in a single payment subscription model.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.