Comments on: Isaacson’s pitch for micropayments http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/ Technology, politics, culture Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:43:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Paying for the news: A link-a-thon http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9378 Paying for the news: A link-a-thon Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:48:24 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9378 [...] – Salon founder Scott Rosenberg on why micropayments won’t work: www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/ [...] [...] – Salon founder Scott Rosenberg on why micropayments won’t work: http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/ [...]

]]> By: Benjamin Grossman http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9364 Benjamin Grossman Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:18:36 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9364 There is also a fracture line between requiring payment in advance and accepting it afterwards. Instead of subscrption and fixed one-use content, we should perhaps consider written content as more like a musical performance. If I "use" a busker's time and skill---listening to several songs or reading several stories/posts---I think it percectly reasonable to make a small cash donation or pay a small (and trivially easy) e-fee; while if I really appreciate the material I can buy a CD or a book or ? Yes, the relationship is not identical, my point is about respect and willingness. But the micropayments need to be trivially easy---easier than reaching in my pocket for a coin. And I find it easier to deal with single artists ( text or audio) than with a whole brand or publisher n this regard, so it fractures on the methods of organization as well. Finally, and where I think the biggest obstacle is, is culture. If you are accustomed to free, it requires a large effort for someone else to show you why paying is in your own (or the communities') interest. Not impossible, but hard. There is also a fracture line between requiring payment in advance and accepting it afterwards. Instead of subscrption and fixed one-use content, we should perhaps consider written content as more like a musical performance. If I “use” a busker’s time and skill—listening to several songs or reading several stories/posts—I think it percectly reasonable to make a small cash donation or pay a small (and trivially easy) e-fee; while if I really appreciate the material I can buy a CD or a book or ? Yes, the relationship is not identical, my point is about respect and willingness. But the micropayments need to be trivially easy—easier than reaching in my pocket for a coin. And I find it easier to deal with single artists ( text or audio) than with a whole brand or publisher n this regard, so it fractures on the methods of organization as well. Finally, and where I think the biggest obstacle is, is culture. If you are accustomed to free, it requires a large effort for someone else to show you why paying is in your own (or the communities’) interest. Not impossible, but hard.

]]> By: Of "appgazines" and saving newspapers | TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9363 Of "appgazines" and saving newspapers | TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:41:31 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9363 [...] his blog, Salon Magazine co-founder Scott Rosenberg lays out the whole sordid history of micropayments and why nobody has managed to get them right yet. He also talks about Salon’s experiments [...] [...] his blog, Salon Magazine co-founder Scott Rosenberg lays out the whole sordid history of micropayments and why nobody has managed to get them right yet. He also talks about Salon’s experiments [...]

]]> By: Scott Rosenberg http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9362 Scott Rosenberg Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:08:23 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9362 Yeah. It all looks pretty clear to us here. There's a classic disjunction at work -- between things that look obvious to Web users that newspaper stakeholders can't/won't see, and things that newspaper stakeholders believe are obvious that make Web users say, "Huh? No, it's not that way at all." The Web users *could* be wrong. But since what we're contemplating is a Web-based future, one way or another, I'm going to guess that they've got the edge in this battle of perspectives. Meanwhile, here is Jay Rosen's thought from twitter: "The old guard will do anything to avoid hard study of the new situation. 'Endow the newspaper' and 'make them pay' are the current evasions." Yeah. It all looks pretty clear to us here. There’s a classic disjunction at work — between things that look obvious to Web users that newspaper stakeholders can’t/won’t see, and things that newspaper stakeholders believe are obvious that make Web users say, “Huh? No, it’s not that way at all.”

The Web users *could* be wrong. But since what we’re contemplating is a Web-based future, one way or another, I’m going to guess that they’ve got the edge in this battle of perspectives.

Meanwhile, here is Jay Rosen’s thought from twitter: “The old guard will do anything to avoid hard study of the new situation. ‘Endow the newspaper’ and ‘make them pay’ are the current evasions.”

]]> By: MediaSlackers http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9361 MediaSlackers Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:55:02 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9361 Scott - You bring up some very good points I had not thought of. Thank you. I have (at least) three problems with this theory: The first issue I have is that Isaacson suggests that newspapers use software that allow us, the reader, to pay 10 cents per article or one dollar per day and that this will somehow change the direction of dwindling dailies and sunken stock prices. Isaacson compares the iTunes model to his micro-payment for news idea. The idea that if I pay .99 cents for a song, I will also pay .99 cents for today’s New York Times is wrong. They are different mediums and used in different ways. Second: There still has yet to be a mea culpa for all of the wrongs wrought over the last decade. I have yet to hear little more than a half-hearted apology for “getting things wrong” with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq for any of the mainstream newspapers. It is so much more than just “getting things wrong” and they know it. Third: Most newspaper articles provide information, news and background once and they have then served their purpose. Even if the charge is one cent per article, I can’t see the mainstream market going backwards. What Isaacson is asking us to do is go back in time, forget that at one time we were able to get our news for free, and instead ask for money for the service. Scott – You bring up some very good points I had not thought of. Thank you. I have (at least) three problems with this theory:

The first issue I have is that Isaacson suggests that newspapers use software that allow us, the reader, to pay 10 cents per article or one dollar per day and that this will somehow change the direction of dwindling dailies and sunken stock prices. Isaacson compares the iTunes model to his micro-payment for news idea. The idea that if I pay .99 cents for a song, I will also pay .99 cents for today’s New York Times is wrong. They are different mediums and used in different ways.

Second: There still has yet to be a mea culpa for all of the wrongs wrought over the last decade. I have yet to hear little more than a half-hearted apology for “getting things wrong” with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq for any of the mainstream newspapers. It is so much more than just “getting things wrong” and they know it.

Third: Most newspaper articles provide information, news and background once and they have then served their purpose. Even if the charge is one cent per article, I can’t see the mainstream market going backwards. What Isaacson is asking us to do is go back in time, forget that at one time we were able to get our news for free, and instead ask for money for the service.

]]> By: Derek http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9357 Derek Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:26:35 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9357 Add to all that: The concept of giving away news in order to make money from advertising is not unique to the web. Free alt weelkies have been doing this forever. And, yeah, it's hard there, too. Maybe that's the point. Technology did not create this problem, and it won't solve it. Add to all that: The concept of giving away news in order to make money from advertising is not unique to the web. Free alt weelkies have been doing this forever. And, yeah, it’s hard there, too. Maybe that’s the point. Technology did not create this problem, and it won’t solve it.

]]> By: Free Reader http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9356 Free Reader Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:35:55 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9356 I think it is worth considering in what ways are music tracks (iTunes) and books (Kindle) different from newspaper articles. For a start, you often buy music after having heard it for free somewhere, say on the radio (or at least having been able to listen to it for free if you wanted to). Books you can browse for free (at the bookstore, and often excerpts are online), and reading them is a commitment of time and money - not really a micropayment. Most newspaper articles are not similar to either of these. A free sample (the lead) is often all one is interested in, similar content is available elsewhere, etc. Particularly popular columnists may be an exception, being perhaps similar to musicians with a fan base (but then again, TimeSelect - or whatever it was called - wasn't a great success either). I think it is worth considering in what ways are music tracks (iTunes) and books (Kindle) different from newspaper articles.
For a start, you often buy music after having heard it for free somewhere, say on the radio (or at least having been able to listen to it for free if you wanted to). Books you can browse for free (at the bookstore, and often excerpts are online), and reading them is a commitment of time and money – not really a micropayment.
Most newspaper articles are not similar to either of these. A free sample (the lead) is often all one is interested in, similar content is available elsewhere, etc.
Particularly popular columnists may be an exception, being perhaps similar to musicians with a fan base (but then again, TimeSelect – or whatever it was called – wasn’t a great success either).

]]> By: New Negotiator http://www.wordyard.com/2009/02/05/isaacsons-pitch-for-micropayments/comment-page-1/#comment-9354 New Negotiator Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:38:12 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1824#comment-9354 Micro payments for news on the web are the equivalent of the airlines latest gambit whereby they nickel and dime their customers to death with charges for things that used to be free but no longer are. Newspapers had it so good for so long that they can't seem to develop a model that makes sense. The model that worked so well for so long was the monopoly model where newspapers cornered the local market for advertising, especially the very lucrative classified advertising business. News was what held the advertising together. What I find interesting is that papers on the web, like the New York Times, show no display advertising whatsoever. Isn't it likely that some advertisers would find value in a national ad campaign, and be willing to pay for it? The Wall Street Journal has never allowed its content to be seen online without a subscription. What do their numbers have to say about how effective that strategy is? Micro payments for news on the web are the equivalent of the airlines latest gambit whereby they nickel and dime their customers to death with charges for things that used to be free but no longer are. Newspapers had it so good for so long that they can’t seem to develop a model that makes sense. The model that worked so well for so long was the monopoly model where newspapers cornered the local market for advertising, especially the very lucrative classified advertising business. News was what held the advertising together.

What I find interesting is that papers on the web, like the New York Times, show no display advertising whatsoever. Isn’t it likely that some advertisers would find value in a national ad campaign, and be willing to pay for it?

The Wall Street Journal has never allowed its content to be seen online without a subscription. What do their numbers have to say about how effective that strategy is?

]]>