WSJ To Try Micropayments: What A Bad Idea

from the watch-this-fail dept

There are all sorts of bad ideas around trying to get people to pay for news, but perhaps the worst is the idea of micropayments. Micropayments are trotted out every other year or so as the "savior" to paid content by people with little understanding of economics. The problem is that micropayments never work in a competitive market. First, the "cost" is much bigger than the nominal sum, because of the mental transaction costs ("is this worth buying?") that add friction to the process. Second, and more importantly, it's a self-defeating move. In adding micropayments, you automatically decrease the value of the content. This may sound paradoxical, but what matter is why and how people value content. These days, many people value content for the ability to engage with it, comment on it and share it with others. Micropayments take away that ability, and thus decrease the value of the content. In some sense, adding a micropayment option gives people fewer reasons to pay! Micropayments have been tried over the years, and every time someone announces them the press goes all nuts about how they're the business model of the future for content. And then the projects go nowhere for a few years, whither and die. And the press never seems to notice.

So, it should probably come as little surprise that it's the press itself that's going to try such a plan. The Wall Street Journals' managing editor, Robert Thomson says that the WSJ is going to start offering a micropayment offering for individual articles. Of course, it sounds like it's not always micropyaments either:
"It's a payments system -- once we have your details we will be able to charge you according to what you read, in particular, a high price for specialist material."
A "high price," by definition, isn't a micropayment of course. And it's just as likely to fail miserably. Putting a paywall in the way of people, and they'll find the content elsewhere. Put a paywall in front of good content, and it just opens up the opportunity for other, smarter, publications, to provide the news for free and run away with all the advertising money.

Filed Under: micropayments, robert thomson, wall street journal
Companies: news corp.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2009 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re:

    If you make people pay to view/comment, then most likely you'll only get people who agree with the author to pay, and thus to comment. That's not a discussion, it's masturbation. I *like* to see a rational, opposing viewpoint-- it either helps me find a better way to state my views, or changes my views on whatever topic is being discussed.
    Free invites idiots. Why do you think nightclubs have a cover charge? Just for obscene profits? Cover charges keeps out the jack-offs who only want to piss on the place. Same is true on the internet.

    Good information isn't paid for now, it's given away for free, supported by ads. How much better are they going to make the good information to make it worth paying for, since only a fool would pay for something that was given away for free without having value added first.

    Just because there are ads, you think it's for free? Media advertising is a tax on all products, whether that media be television, radio or newspapers. There is no free beer in this world, chump.

    Quality news sites are already here, for free. I don't use any of the major news outlets for news, and I'm often better informed than those that do. Making it harder for people to read your content will only serve to make you go out of business faster.

    Name a few. Name a news site that's not connected to another media outlet that has real journalists and fact checkers, like the newspapers used to have. Simply compiling links isn't news.

    A business will emerge that charges for its content and at some point, when all the under 30s of the world no longer believe John Stewart or Colbert is of any use, they'll either pay for the information or they'll be dumber than they already are.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.