Fame, Fortune and Micropayments 177
adharma writes "Clay Shirky is at it again. Addressed previously, his new article discussess the failures of Micropayments and the joys of free content."
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek
You know... (Score:1, Interesting)
1. A single system gains the monopoly, and micropayments start to actually look worthwhile. OR
2. Consumers just continue to resort to big name information providers which they create accounts with, maintaining the status quo.
If the e-coins system I was a member of earlier in theis decade is any indication, I see the latter as the much more likely of the two evils to occur...
Paypal (Score:1, Interesting)
instead of subscriptions, maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
Micropayments are the Next Big Thing(TM)... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's this guy smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. I'll be contacting him shortly about hosting some sites... since he's figured out how to do it for free, regardless of the bandwidth usage. In the end, someone pays. You may or may not do it directly, which /. is a good example of, but you do pay.
It's the impetus of opening your wallet (Score:4, Interesting)
Shirky makes good points -- I think the real problem with micropayments is that you have to counteract the momentum of a closed wallet.
People are frugal -- especially online. I pay for the occaisonal shareware, and I subscribe to the occaisonal service. Like Shirky mentions, I can easily determine the value of spending $20 to support a software author I like. When I see enough value, I open my wallet.
When it comes to $0.25 for a comic strip, though, we have no point of reference when it comes to value. We're buying something of "fractional" value; 1/365th of a yearly subscription, or 1/2 a laugh, for example. Is a comic really worth 5 cents a frame? If I'm doing it for moral reasons -- to support the author -- will he even notice the $0.25? What exactly is a good deal for $0.25, anyhow?
When it comes to something buying something with such fractional value, it's simply not worth consumers' time to make that buying the decision. It's definitely not enough to counteract the momentum of a closed wallet.
clearly argued (Score:3, Interesting)
The web shows the same pareto distribution that Frank & Cook discuss, with a few sites getting a huge number of hits and the vast majority getting just a few.
However, Shirky may still be right that the proliferation of free content will prevent even wildly popular sites from turning their fame into fortune. It's also possible that the continued emphasis on blockbusters is a flawed business model that causes publishers/producers to overlook vast markets for a greater variety of content. It's the unwillingness to see beyond the huge profits of a Britney Spears or Madonna album that leads the music industry to pursue shortsighted strategies of squelching online access to music.
People pay for quality. (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought McCloud's comic was well worth the 25 cents and BitPass was pretty easy to use. I might experiment with it on a future project of my own--alongside free content.
I don't remember exactly what separates a "micropayment" from a "small payment," but consider the apparent success of iTunes. I've talked to a lot of people who are amazed at how easy it is to click and buy--at $.99 even--and they're more willing to spend than they thought they were. Can people find these same songs for free? Probably. But they're paying for how much more convenient the paid service is to them than the free version.
I'd love to see how well or how poorly McCloud has done with his comic. Here's someone who has demonstrated his value to the consumer in the past with both free and priced content. I think finding out if people were willing to follow HIM from free to
a practical way of implementing micropayments (Score:2, Interesting)
the amounts being charged would always be displayed, as would the running balance of your account.
Re:Getting what you pay for (Score:5, Interesting)
Rush Limbaugh's 24/7 program is similar in that you pay around $45 a year ($75 for two years) for both the monthly newsletter and premium web access combined. $10 less for no newsletter.
Been a member for 2 years now, and I find it's worth it, even tho I only hit it 2 or 3 times a month. Also give access to higher bandwidth audio stream of the live show, which is nice in a steel building with no reception. Plus tons of good links, video feeds, access to tons of audio and video links, and archived shows. When you listen to the archives, there are NO commercials, and when you listen live online, you get bumper music instead of commercials when you are a paying member.
My opinion is that the Rush program works because it is not "all things for all people" but rather a very focused delivery system for specific content, conservative politics.
Not everyone is into it, but they have a ton of members and provide exceptional content for those who like it. If you like the Rush show (I do) it provides very nice access with no commercials. It is a pretty good model for others.
But, of course, you've got it upside-down... (Score:3, Interesting)
The author seems to think micro-payments are doomed to fail because it is not macro-payments that are deflecting customers -- it's the mental action of deciding whether or not to buy something.
I can see his point in the short-term. If a site I read regularly suddenly switches to micro-payments, I have to decide if I think the site is "worth it" anymore. I might very well stop visiting it all together. If you force any significant number of people to make a decision -- any decision -- you'll end up with people on both sides of the fence.
Likewise I agree with the author that, if I was bored and randomly surfing a list of micro-payment-enabled content, I would have to subject each offering to an uncomfortable level of scrutiny that may turn me off from clicking the "Buy" button.
But these two scenarios are not what micro-payments are trying to address. Micro-payments really shine when the decision to buy has already been made.
The large percentage of all things bought are premeditated. It's not often that someone drives by an auto dealer and decides on the spur of the moment that he's going to buy a car. People do not go to a book store and just wander aimlessly and sometimes accidentally buy a book.
If a person goes shopping, it is with the intention to buy.
So now lets look at the more likely scenario of a micro-payments shopper. Say a young boy longs to find some entertaining reading material. He's already decided that he's willing to pay for it. So he goes on line to sort out his options. He finds a comic book store, but it's in the next town, a half-hour drive away. He discovers he can subscribe to his favorite comic, but that's expensive, and it will take the comic book company forever to ship it to him. There are some free comics on the web, but he's read all of those, and some of them are of questionable quality. Then he comes upon a comic that can be purchased with micro-payments. Let's look at the questions this boy is going to ask himself:
People will only balk at being asked to buy something if they are not shopping to begin with. And it's a fact of business that it's hard to get people who are not shopping to make impulse purchases. But micro-payments should not be misconstrued as being designed to attract the impulse buyer. While their low cost does give them a foot in this door, micro-payments will really only come into their own when used to sell goods that the public is looking to buy.
You're Missing the Point (Score:2, Interesting)