Testing an Ad-Free Microtransaction Utopia 248
MrAndrews writes "After reading a Slashdot story about adblocking and the lively discussion that followed, I got to wondering how else sites can support themselves, if paywalls and ads are both non-starters. Microtransactions have been floated for years, but never seem to take off, possibly because they come off as arbitrary taxation or cumbersome walled-garden novelties. Still, it seems like the idea of microtransactions is still appealing, it's just the wrapping that's always been flawed. I wanted to know how viable the concept really was, so I've created a little experiment to gather some data, to put some real numbers to it. It's a purely voluntary system, where you click 1, 2 or 3-cent links in your bookmark bar, depending on how much you value the page you're visiting. No actual money is involved, it's just theoretical. There's a summary page that tells you how much you would have spent, and I'll be releasing anonymized analyses of the data in the coming weeks. If you're game, please check out the experiment page for more information, and give it a go. Even if you only use it once and forget about it, that says something about the concept right there."
No actual money is involved (Score:5, Insightful)
Might skew the results a bit.
Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't work because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some sort of payment scheme is a good idea, but not like this. Often you'll find someone throw themselves into a freeware project and get disillusioned and abandon it when issues like paying the rent take precedence. I think the old 'Donate $5 with Paypal' is a good idea, if you can get rid of the Paypal, Visa, Mastercard or any other intermediary who might block payments. http://www.pcworld.com/article/242470/wikileaks_suspends_publication_because_of_financial_boycott.html [pcworld.com]
Nickel & Dimed to Death (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble with microtransactions is they'll create an incentive for content publishers to "nickel and dime" readers.
Just look at phone and tablet games with "in app purchase" models. A great idea in theory. In practice, it drives the entire game design from "pay to play" to "pay to win".
If the content industry figures out how to make microtransactions work (a pretty big if)... just watch. Content will adapt from trying to attract and genuinely appeal to readers to a "nickel and dime" them to the maximum extent possible!
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not a valid experiment exactly because it is artificial and no real money is involved. The results will tell us nothing of value about the question.
Re:Won't work because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
EXACTLY this, actually. I mean, it'd be great if everyone clicked those buttons 15 times a day, but already today I've closed a tab and gone "doh! that was good! I forgot to click!"... and I set the bloody thing up. So yeah, there is friction in the model that is potentially unescapable and/or fatal.
Also, I don't know that this is necessarily a business model anyone wants to depend on. It really requires you to be creating content that is not only good, but has enough reach that lots of people can see it, and like it enough to support it. It scales absolutely horribly, actually, for smaller acts. But then again, if you suddenly become popular, you could actually capitalize on your popularity, rather than just watching the views come and go.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not a valid experiment exactly because it is artificial and no real money is involved. The results will tell us nothing of value about the question.
Yes, in exactly the same way the Stanford Prison Experiment didn't teach us anything about human behavior because it wasn't a real prison...
Flooded with ads from birth to death (Score:0, Insightful)
I block ALL adverts on the net, i timeshift my TV so i can fast forward through the tv adverts, i rip my DVDs so i'm not forced to watch the trailers, i don't look at billboards or adverts on the side of buses or on bus stops or on walls or on people's clothes...
I pay to live in a house, i pay to access the net, i pay for tv, i pay for lights in the street, i pay for everyone else's healthcare, i pay the wages of my country's corrupt politicians, i pay 20% extra on nearly all products, i pay more tax on petrol than any other country.
My eyeballs are not for sale, if a site i frequent turns to microtransations i simply won't go there any more.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nickel & Dimed to Death (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem is that they don't actually nickle and dime you, they $1 and $5 you. They never seem to understand the "micro" part of micro transaction.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:4, Insightful)
The web pay is about money directly. So substituting something else does, necessarily, change the results.
The original poster stated that this test would yield no experimentally useful data because the environment was simulated instead of actual. That argument is bogus: Simulations can and usually do yield useful results. I said nothing about role play, substitution, etc., that's all you. All I have said is this simulation will yield experimentally useful data. It may not yield the kind and quality of data you want, but it is still scientifically useful.
The first step in any scientific endeavor is the collection of data with an eye towards testing a hypothesis. I do not see the problem with the author's test. does it matter if 1%, 10%, or 99% of the people who go to the website would do the same if "real" money was involved? Not necessarily. If a data plot shows the same relationships, but on a different scale, then this large-scale test without money could be very useful in a small-scale test with money. It could be used to validate certain models of human behavior, or rule out others.
Of course, inductive reasoning ability amongst slashdotters has been falling like a rock for some time, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see such a poorly-reasoned reply getting moderated up... -_-
Re:ads didn't work? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is people hosting sites taking no responsibility for the ads on it. I never objected to regular old ads (and still don't), but started using ad-blocker when ads started popping up over the text I'm reading, singing, dancing around, popping up, over, and uner, popping up after I've navigated away, or running horrid javascript and flash that managed to consume most of my CPU cycles. Then there's the very much NSFW ads that pop up even when the page I'm reading is G rated. I vener had problems with the virus laden drive by ads since I use Linux, but that is a very valid reason to block ads as well.
There's only so many times you can kick someone in the crotch before they take countermeasures.
If sites ask nicely AND vet the ads they present, people might be willing to allow ads on those sites. It's more work, and so the ads might need to pay more, but they'll also be more likely to be actually seen by someone. That might be a tough way to go though since so many advertisers have effectively salted the earth.
Re:Where is the 0-cent option (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of these is more meaningful?
60% chose 1 cent
30% chose 2 cents
10% chose 3 cents
Or:
90% chose 0 cents
6% chose 1 cent
3% chose 2 cents
1% chose 3 cents
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, inductive reasoning ability amongst slashdotters has been falling like a rock for some time, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see such a poorly-reasoned reply getting moderated up
Then you drop into an ad hominem, where you can't fault the logic directly, so you imply it's faulty.
It seems you meant to say "I can't disagree with your statement that it's not valid, but even invalid experiments can yield useful data." Which if you had said directly, rather than an obscure analogy (no, I didn't have to look it up, but I'm quite certain that 99% of the general population wouldn't know what it is, even if 10 out of 10 slashdotters would claim to know eveything, even if only because they Google it first), it may have been more clear. Unfortunately, I know the study you referenced quite well, so I immediately recognized the flawed analogy you were trying to pull off. If I were dumber, then maybe nobody else would have noticed. Perhaps it is you and your inductive reasoning that's substandard.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:3, Insightful)
here's the cool part: upon detecting I'm a PayMe member, it kicks me into a premium version of the site, say without advertisements or some other feature. Or perhaps it shows me an article that would otherwise have been paywalled. At the end of the month, my $10 is split amongst all the websites that gave me this preferential treatment.
Websites would presumably jump at this program, because they could make some real money compared to the ad impression rate. And it would be transparent to the user, because things would automatically increment when he/she surfs. Lastly, it would create demand for some sort of "premium" web page experience for those willing to pay.
ho, snap. I'm getting excited about this!
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally, you'd pretend it was real money, if only for calibration purposes, and act accordingly. This experiment is gathering information broadly, but also for you, specifically. So you can see what you'd spend, if you were spending.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems you meant to say "I can't disagree with your statement that it's not valid, but even invalid experiments can yield useful data."
That's exactly how I read it as well.
The theory seems to be:
Nobody is plunking down pennies, but if we all pretend we were, we will see how such a payment system might work.
Unless or until there is an actual monetary collection mechanism the experiment is a bogus mind game. You would learn much more by putting a primate in a cage with three buttons which invoked a tiny, medium, and large swat with a newspaper when pressed. Even the dumbest monkey would press even the lightest swat inducing button more than one or two times. Even is the buttons induced nothing worse than an annoyingly bright light they would not push the buttons. If the buttons did nothing at all they would learn not to waste any effort pushing them.
So unless there is a penalty, newspaper or monetary, no amount of pretend button pushing will teach us anything.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:2, Insightful)
No thanks. I already pay for my internet bandwidth. I don't want to pay for everyone else's too. Paywall the site or shut it down and get a real job if the income isn't sufficient for you. Internet users aren't required to make the network a revenue stream for you. It's not cable tv, nor should it be.