There’s been much talk in the mediasphere over the past couple of weeks about paying for it. We’ve had the usual we-are-valuable-so-give-us-money plea from some journalists who, apparently, are just discovering that media is in trouble. We’ve had some magazine writers jumping into the newspaper conversation from the pages of their suddenly skinnier magazines.
And we’ve had an awful lot of thoughtful talk from a lot of folks that goes well beyond the usual pay-us vs. it-has-to-be-free folks. I’ve added some links at the bottom of this post to some of that very good discussion.
A lot of the conversation has settled, of late, on the concept of micropayments. I’m among those who think micropayments — small bits of change that recognize value and, if the value is there, add up to bigger pieces of change — may be the most elegant way to solve the problem of paying for value.
But I see three big hurdles that have to be overcome before that’s possible.
The first is that micropayments, at least the way they are currently being discussed, are too much based on an old way of consuming media: a local paper or two that I read, maybe a national title, maybe a couple of specialty publications. Paying a couple of pennies (or tenth of pennies) for every page I read makes sense when that’s the model.
But, of course, that’s no longer the model. The media I consume varies from day to day (sometimes from hour to hour) and covers the full gamut of local, regional, national and international. Those are not often the same as they were yesterday and I don’t even have a single source bookmarked for when big news breaks: I pick and choose as I go.
And, believe me, I am not going to set up separate micropayment accounts with literally hundreds and hundreds of publications. I’m even unlikely to set up an account with a “select” group of media publications. How can I, when my media reading list is so fluid?
The second issue is one that we are not likely to hear media companies talk much about, but it is as vital to the conversation as anything. It’s that it is no longer just media that delivers value to me. Valuable information comes from a myriad of sources — including bloggers, folks on Twitter and YouTube — beyond the media. Sometimes, in fact, it’s what is added by the blogging, tweeting and videoing commenters that adds the real value to what is reported by the media.
(None of this is to denigrate the work of journalists and their publishers. It’s just the facts, ma’am.)
And third: the fact that I visit a web page does not mean that it has value to me. The value is only established after I’ve read/see what’s there. How often will I be willing to pay (even if it’s being measured in tenths of pennies) for the right to look at a page without knowing the potential value of what I’ll find there?
So this is where my belief that micropayments offer at least a partial solution to the who-will-pay-for-the-news question runs up against cold reality. If you accept my idea of the three stumbling blocks, we need to devise a system that (1) allows for single registration for everything, (2) opens up the pot to everyone creating media with potential value, and (3) puts the user in control of establishing the value.
Some related posts you might find interesting:
- The Monday Note: And now, let’s try micropayments
- Nieman Journalism Lab: Please pay us for our news — please?, with a great conversation in the comments.
- Mark Potts: Asking People to Pay for News: What He Said
- Al Tompkins: Should News Organizations Charge for Online Content?
If you’ve found others, please drop a link into the comments.
Now advertisers have found alternate sources and newspapers and journalists want subscribers to make up the difference.
I bow down… this is a very nice piece of work, thanx
[...] Not that I’m complaining. (Those of us passionately involved welcome nearly all 5 trillion.) But some of the offerings are, to put it as kindly as possible, better than others. (Here are some takedowns of some examples of the lless than great group.) [...]
[...] 08, 2009 – 7:37 pm Paying a little by Mark [...]
Michael J: “The problem at hand is not saving journalism. The challenge is inventing journalism that people will value.”
I agree, and that’s something this whole micropayments debate has talked around without really addressing. Maybe parts of the current newsroom model aren’t worth saving. (Tough for me to say this as a journalist facing layoffs, but there it is.)
More of my argument here: http://is.gd/jGty
[...] Notes from a Teacher – Paying a little [...]
[...] Mark Hamilton on Notes From A Teacher: [...]
Mark: I think your points are well taken and the obstacles you cite real. But are you a typical news consumer? I think many people at a local level will pay for specific journalism that they value. And Eleanor and Michael J. have a great point about that.
If I am living in a city where the local newspaper is no longer playing a watchdog on government spending, I might pay a fee, contribution, whatever to underwrite that service, for example. If I am a parent concerned about school performance, I might subscribe to a service that provides granular news about schools (I might contribute news to it as well), for example. More about these ideas at http://tinyurl.com/6gobye Thanks Mark et al for some great thinking and discussion!
[...] mirata e rapida rispetto ai tempi di circolazione e senescenza di un quotidiano. E, come dice Mark Hamilton, è cambiato il consumo di media: nessuno legge più solo un quotidiano e per [...]
[...] Forget Micropayments — Here’s a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content. E já agora ler Paying a little e os textos que o artigo [...]
[...] più mirata e rapida rispetto ai tempi di circolazione e senescenza di un quotidiano. E, come dice Mark Hamilton, è cambiato il consumo di media: nessuno legge più solo un quotidiano e per l’individuo non [...]
[...] Journalism teacher Mark Hamilton on micro-payments: http://www.tamark.ca/students/.....-a-little/ [...]
Just want to weigh in on Eleanor’s point.
“No model will work for a product no one wants.”
1. Most people scan, view and search newspapers.
Readers are a niche market. The New Yorker has aggregated readers. They have little problem with the read for free, pay for Print and stuff model.
2. Most “journalism” most the time is not worth the read, much less any money. The problem at hand is not saving journalism. The challenge is inventing journalism that people will value.
1) To reiterate Martin’s point, a central clearinghouse that aggregates micropayments and which is the sole entity that you have to maintain an account with is the correct solution. Of course there are other problems with micropayments related to tax law, transaction costs, and so on, but which are probably reparable.
2 and especially 3 I think are addressed by a model in which the payment is voluntary and post-facto. Essentially, tipping. Can the existing journalism world be maintained by aggregating micro-tips? Almost certainly not, but it’s a revenue stream that’s better than 0 and there are obviously industries that are currently remunerated almost entirely on tips.
Projecting an anecdote into data, I would be happy to tip articles and videos at the few-cents level throughout the day if the process was just pushing a button and someone else took care of getting the money to the recipient.
Tell me where I am wrong.
Traditionally, and fatally as it turns out, newspapers have not – at least since the 1960s – depended upon subscribers for their bottom line. Subscribers represent less than 10% of their income.
Newspapers have exploited their monopoly in local markets as the single source of advertising. In theory, advertisers pay based upon the number of subscribers, but while that number has decreased for decades, advertising rates haven’t.
Now advertisers have found alternate sources and newspapers and journalists want subscribers to make up the difference.
Newspapers didn’t lose subscribers because there were other sources for most of those 40 years since the 1960s. They lost subscribers because they didn’t give a darn about what their readers wanted exactly BECAUSE subscribers picked up the tab.
What makes newspapers and journos think their work and, more importantly, their Attitudes are worth twelve cents to the average consumer? Robert Fisk probably has such delusions, but he’s certifiably nuts and everyone knows it.
No model will work for a product no one wants.
Mark, suppose, in addition to your 1-2-3 conditions:
1. You could set up one account that allowed micropayments at virtually any site, including non-news content,
2. Most news content remained free; the paid stuff would have enough added value for you to pay a smidge; it would include Deep Web stuff that’s now not findable on Google and not obtainable without subscriptions or other payment methods, and there would be ample preview opportunity before you purchase; and:
3. The system were coupled with other benefits, for example, stronger control over privacy (your date resides in one place you control instead of many places on the web), and:
4. The meter could run backward and pay you, for example for viewing or interacting with commercial (advertising) content.
If that existed, would it change your mind?