Micropayments make a lot of sense.
First, the basic concept is similar to the newsstand experience, where you buy one copy. That’s a tried and true model. Why not move it online?
Second, we can picture three tiers of websites. The largest being those you want to read. The next-largest being those you might want to for some of their content. The smallest being those you’re willing to subscribe to. Micropayments fit into group 2.
But they haven’t caught on. Also, I’ve noticed that the subject of micropayments tends to annoy people. I’m wondering why. Here are some options.
(1) We’ve heard this old story for decades, and it never seems to work. Stop beating a dead horse.
(2) The ad-supported model requires no work on the customer side, even though they hate ads. The subscription model requires some work on the customer side, but it’s understandable. The micropayment ecosystem is confusing. Until there’s a universal, simple standard (which will never happen), it won’t catch on.
(3) “Micropayment” means macro hassle for very little return. You have to fuss with all kinds of little details to get a dime.
I’m not saying these criticisms are fair. It’s possible to create a micropayment system that’s easy on both the publisher and the consumer. But perception is more important than reality in some cases.
Another psychological barrier is that no big media brand has made it work. The New York Times sells subscriptions and doesn’t use micropayments.
I asked Bard why there is so much emotion surrounding the debate over micropayments.
He said, “First, micropayments are a new and unproven technology. There is no guarantee that they will be successful, and there is a risk that they could alienate readers.”
Okay. Bard is stupid. Micropayments are not new. They’ve been around for decades.
“Second,” Bard continues, “micropayments challenge the status quo. The current system of free content supported by ads is very convenient for readers, and it is difficult to change.”
Thank you, Google, for supporting your own revenue model.
“Third,” says Bard, “micropayments raise questions about the future of journalism. If readers are willing to pay for individual pieces of content, then what will happen to the traditional news organizations that rely on subscriptions and advertising?”
I don’t believe the public cares about that when they’re deciding whether or not to spend 20 cents on an article. Also, independent journalists on Substack use subscriptions.
The bottom line seems to be that they just don’t work, for whatever reason.
I’d like to be wrong about this, so prove me wrong. Not with arguments or philosophy or ideas, but with actual examples of major media outlets who are making it work.
Links
Research shows micropayments are not the panacea for news media
