Payment 4 content

[Undertoad]

I wrote a question for a /. interview today. They are going to be asking Clay Shirky, a New Media guy whose opinions I've been seeing around a lot. Here's what I wrote:

I agree with you that micropayments are not coming any time soon. But I worry that the net is not accurately communicating its need for quality content -- and its willingness to pay for same.

Amongst any group of users, my bet is that you'll find several who would pay for improvements in the quality and nature of the information they receive. Obviously there is great value in correct and timely information. In some cases, it is nothing short of a life or death matter. In most cases it simply keeps us a little better informed.

I don't understand, therefore, why none of your proposed solutions (aggregation, subscription, subsidy) have evolved yet. Every site that I've seen try subscription has given up (except one: the WSJ). And everyone agrees that subsidy in the form of advertising is not going to fly.

Many high-quality sites that deserve to survive are having a tough time of it, and it's not for lack of readership. The Onion hasn't created any multi-millionaires; it should have. Salon has had layoffs. The Straight Dope should make more money on its website than on its books. User Friendly should not have to resort to dead tree publishing or syndication.

In short, while Fucked Company celebrates the death of the crappy sites and stupid business plans, the quality sites are in danger of dying as well. What's gone wrong? Why haven't any models come about that support what people really want?


This was "modded up" in the site's moderation system, so the question will be asked. I really can't wait for an answer, because to me, this is the number-one question in how compelling the internet is going to be.

Will anybody ever really get paid for it?

[elSicomoro]

Great post, Tony. I'm curious to see what his response will be.

My $.02--The net is the most personalized of all the media out there. We can tailor other forms (radio, TV) fairly well, but never before have individuals had so MUCH control over what they really want. Right now, the bottom line for getting what we want costs about $20 a month (at least for me). For those wanting to make money on their content, there are always ads (as with other media)...that seems like the only surefire to guarantee yourself SOME money. They can also limit content. You can get almost everything online, but let's say I want to read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch online...I know that the online version is not going to be quite as good as the print version. (Definitely true...Postnet sucks.) Not to mention, if you want older material from the online newspapers, you have to pay for it. And those online versions are covered in ads.

I think people got too gushy over the 'net during '98 and '99. As people got more familiar with it, it was a big rush...people couldn't get enough of it. Then the honeymoon ended.

Lastly, I think that good old-fashioned American "I want everything for free" attitude hurts the internet as well. Look at Napster...now we have a new generation of whiny-baby teenagers wanting everything handed to them for naught a dime.

As I said, just my $.02...

[tw]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
... Why haven't any models come about that support what people really want? ...[/i]
...
Will anybody ever really get paid for it?

All Internet transactions have been developed / conducted without the cooperation of the banking (financial) community. They don't stifle it but make no effort to become part of or promote it either.

Banks fear innovation. They feared bank cards until demands for Diner's Club, American Express, and later Visa and Master Card all but forced banks to join. They feared ATMs - keeping them out of America for ten years after they were routine in Europe. They now fear Smart Cards using the same rediculous studies that proved in the 1950s/60s that Americans did not want credit cards. IOW banking is dominated by classic MBA mentality. They want increased profit but refuse to develop or risk new business methods. That is communism. Banks have it too easy. There is no such thing as a hungry banker (no wonder they are typically portrayed so fat).

In the mid 1990s, banks praised a new technology that had sharply reduced costs. Something banks considered revolutionary. A technology that was already 20 years old in most other industries. Banks discovered networking - although still most bank employees (except upper management) cannot even send or receive e-mail today.

Without cooperation of the banking community, then no fee based service can survive outside of monthly subscriptions. All other transactons become too complex or too expensive. With only credit cards transactions, then profitable web businesses remain stifled.

Credit card based transactions were a savior for web businesses. Credit card transactions occur without bank promotion. Internet banking is discouraged even though it would lower a bank's costs. Banks fear new commercial methods. Banks fear to innovate.

The original question begs, "why is a ten cent transaction not practical?" We have no easy way to make that payment. How do you do small transactions on the web? You can't use cash or checks. Credit cards mean that transactions must start at $20+. Commercial banking practices are killing the web.

[Griff]

"why is a ten cent transaction not practical?" There certainly is no serious technical barrier. It looks to me like a license to print money, without a license if you find the right base of operations.

Does anyone have experience with any of the e-bay accounts where you transfer cash in using larger increments then use the account to pay for whatever trash you buy? (we won't judge you for knowing)

or these guys...

http://www.e-gold.com/

[Dagnabit]

I've used Paypal a few times. No problems. Very simple to set up and use.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
All Internet transactions have been developed / conducted without the cooperation of the banking (financial) community. They don't stifle it but make no effort to become part of or promote it either.

In the mid 1990s, banks praised a new technology that had sharply reduced costs. Something banks considered revolutionary. A technology that was already 20 years old in most other industries. Banks discovered networking - although still most bank employees (except upper management) cannot even send or receive e-mail today.

I second that, having worked for a bank from 1997-99. Towards the end of my time there, the bank I worked for started "limiting" their services a la Bank of America. As I'm sure most of you know now, you usually have to pay a service charge to visit a teller at most banks now, unless you have a substantial bank balance. (I pay $8 a month if I do so with First Union.) With my bank, they discouraged giving extensive service to "lower-grade customers" (e.g. college kids with a small checking account or people who really only had a bank account to write bills or cash checks). I found this ironic, given that my former employer markets itself extensively to college kids and people looking for "free" checking.

Banks today are looking to save money more than anything. They want you to use ATMs for everything. They want you to call their customer service lines for any type of assistance. Why? So they can reduce their in-house staffs and the number of branches. Yet with all the mergers in recent years, the number of branches that each bank has has risen, if only temporarily. (There are 6 First Union branches within a 10-minute drive of my apartment, including one two blocks away.)

Given that I worked as a teller for 2 years, I have no problem staying out of the branches. However, given the rise in our older population, there are some people that really do have a hard time understanding ATMs. If you're going to move people to the trough, at least show them how to feed themselves.

[Cerebus]

The problem goes beyond micropayments and into something a little more granular, as we marketers would say: unless you get a big tangible object as a keepsake, the purchase is not satisfying. If purchases are not satisfying, they need to be wrapped in dire consequence.

Consider the things you spend money on where you do not get a thing: insurance and taxes. On the former, you either content yourself with some hope of superior service, or you price-shop. On the latter, the pain is mitigated slightly through payroll deductions. With either, if you didn't live in fear of the consequences of non-compliance, you'd be tempted to try to go without.

Paying for content is the same story, and it's why there is no great moral anguish over theft from musicians with Napster. My wife sells her CDs at gigs, and she was recently told by one prospect that he'd check Napster first, and if her disc wasn't there, he'd come back and buy it. Pretty breathtaking.

Should the Onion's writers be millionaires? That's kind of like asking if a bicycle should be pink; the quality of content is in no way indicative of commerce. Hard to believe or argue in a world where everyone has a price tag, but true nonetheless. (And if you don't believe me, go watch Louise Brooks in "Pandora's Box." Widely believed to be one of the finest silent movies ever, and a flop at the box office in 1929. Which commerce was correct?)