The Problem with Micropayments, and an Alternative
Many years ago I lived in Ireland for my junior college year and stayed in a dorm where they kept the rooms crisp. I could stick a 25 pence coin into a little toaster in my room that would blast out five minutes of heat. When I was under my blankets at night I wouldn’t bother, but when I was studying and stopped being able to feel my fingers out would come the roll of 25p coins and I’d shovel them into the machine until I could no longer see my breath.
That’s the model of micropayments we should be working on. Online publishers– help your readers to keep warm!
Where does this thought come from? Yesterday I listened to a robust conversation about micropayments on the July 8th “This Week in Media” podcast hosted by my friend Daisy Whitney in which Daisy and her guests chewed over how micropayments should and shouldn’t work, when fifty cents is too much and the like.
In contrast to Daisy’s guests who debated the right price point, I think most online publishing micropayment schemes miss the mark because they charge for the wrong thing: the article rather than the access. Online publishers need to get out of the business of thinking about their product as a collection of articles and get into the business of thinking about their product as making my life easier by keeping me informed.
Here’s what I mean: If the New York Times goes back behind a pay wall, then when I click to get their take on, say, the latest on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, I’d probably get an option to pay for an article… maybe even with a sneak preview of the first few sentences.
But what if I click and buy the WRONG article? I’ll feel bad about myself and angry with the publisher… neither of which are good.
Right now, as I’m writing this, the front door of www.nytimes.com has NINE pieces of content about Sotomayor– that’s eight chances to make a mistake. If I want the overview and I mistakenly click on the analysis, then I’m going to feel cheated. Even if it only costs 10 cents it’s MY 10 cents and I’ll grimace about having made the wrong choice.
Remember: it’s hard to compete with free… and if the NYTimes makes me feel bad about my click-choice acumen I’ll probably go to a different source (there are plenty at Google News) that is free.
It should be impossible to make the wrong choice when I click on NYTimes.com.
What the Times should do instead is give me five minutes of total site access for 10 ten cents and keep track of how many times I click the “keep reading?” button and get charged another 10 cents so that if I reach the $1.50 newstand price for an entire paper I automatically get converted to a pass for a full day or more. A “thank you for reading” pop-up would be nice, too. (A full week of the paper delivered to my door costs just $5.85, so digital access should be much cheaper.)
If I pay 10 cents for five minutes of full site access then I have five minutes to find the page I want… and anybody should be able to do that. Let’s say it takes me four minutes to get to the right article: I’ll be able to read it even if my time expires because the browser window will still be there. I just won’t be able to click to read something new.
Suddenly, I’m engaged with the NYTimes and once I’m engaged I’ll keep clicking that spend-a-dime button because, hey, it’s just a dime and I already know that I’m getting what I want. Heck, I’ll drop 99 cents for a song at iTunes that I’ll probably only listen to twice… 10 cents is a bargain.
(Side Note: NYT folks, remember that you get to KEEP the song on iTunes… so don’t go thinking that I somehow advocate a 99 cents-for-five-minutes-of-access charge.)
One major difference between this micropayment scheme and the per-article scheme is that I don’t measure my life in articles but I do measure it in minutes. I know how much my time is worth (a lot) and letting a media brand I know and trust inform me is worth a dime or more.
And if the Times sells me saved time then I’ll be inclined to lean on them for more product offerings, for a full subscription that would include a TiVo like premium layer of information brought to me based on my previous reading.
Keep me warm.
P.S. Some of my thinking in this post is informed by Barry Schwartz’s wonderful book, “The Paradox of Choice.”
One Response to “The Problem with Micropayments, and an Alternative”
1 Keri 15 July 2009 @ 11:12 am
I completely agree with your take. I have been amazed at the ability for the publishers to dismiss a micropayment model for subscription base. It is like they can’t think outside of the box. I, like you, want access and not articles. The point about selecting the wrong article is interesting, but I am not sure that the digital access price should be equal to or less than the the hard copy. Advertising revenue in each medium needs to be considered as I highly doubt the values are equal. Paying for the news is not their only and definitely not their best revenue stream.
Leave your comment