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."
this isn't really testing the hard part (Score:4, Interesting)
The hard part is getting people onto some kind of platform that works and where friction and transaction costs don't eat all the money. If, theoretically, one existed, then maybe it'd be interesting when people click 1 cent or 3 cents; but a bigger issue is putting them in a position where they can easily click at all.
The only micropayment-for-writing platform I've seen with significant uptake was Readability's now-discontinued experiment [technologyreview.com], and it worked (to the extent it did, though it's been canned, so perhaps not that well) because lots of people used Readability for other reasons. So it was more of a revenue-share that Readability was offering to any webmaster who wanted to sign up. I think you need something like that, a platform that people are already on for some other reason.
The data is meaningless without real money (Score:5, Interesting)
The data being collected has very little impact on real world results. If there is no cost, then people will simply click the 3 cent link when they remember to do so. Since it has no impact on their finances they won't think twice about it.
Think about gaming sites that give you free unlimited chips to play poker with. People bet the max every hand no matter if they have 2-7 off suit or pair of aces. This completely destroys any comparisons to a real money game.
Re:Has to be real money (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the proposals are based on aggregating the "give this person 3 cents" indicators through some kind of intermediary platform, not processing them all on the spot. For example, with Flattr [flattr.com] you pay Flattr once per month, and then you indicate how you want the money distributed by clicking on various things. The money isn't sent immediately then either, but accumulates in the recipient's acocunt, and is paid out when they reach a threshold. So on both the pay-in and pay-out sides the transactions are fewer and bigger.
The trick is getting enough people to sign up for such a thing for it to be at all viable.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but that in itself could be part of the experiment, for each individual person. For instance, today I'd already have spent $0.25. At the moment, I can't tell if I'm happy with that result or not, but I bet by the end of a month, I'll know if my "whee!" approach to dropping pennies is a Very Bad Idea.
Mod Points (Score:5, Interesting)
I usually spend my mod points when /. award them to me.
I have no issue with this. If I had to pay for Mods, there is no way I would have ever spent 1.
you realize you are asking on an ad supported site (Score:4, Interesting)
that has been going strong for more than ten years?
you are confusing slashdot commenters with slashdot users. commenters are, in general, a bunch of angry cranks who get a buzz out of spewing bile and hatred through their keyboard. slashdot users generally read the article (or the first sentence or two) and then do something productive with their life.
paywalls do work for some content, otherwise places like the WSJ, slate, etc etc etc, wouldn't use them.
and ebooks are doing a pretty good business on the kindle, nook, etc. even the Kobo survived the demise of Borders.
and microtransactions work perfectly well (too well) in games - theres probably someone in publishing who has noticed this and has implemented/worked on integrating that into a website.
Re:this isn't really testing the hard part (Score:4, Interesting)
I had a great discussion today about what "next steps" would be for this, pretty much encompassing your point above. The somewhat-decided gist is that there's some single place or service that handles the actual money. So for instance, you create an account there and drop $10 into it, and then just go browsing the web as usual, clicking the 1, 2 or 3-penny buttons built into your browser. At the end of each month (or thereabouts), the central organization pays each of the sites you supported, thereby dodging the "micro" aspect of the microtransaction. Sites themselves wouldn't have to sign up or support it, they'd just have to claim the money using some kind of verification process (that would be a nightmare in and of itself).
Entirely voluntary on all fronts... which means it's basically impossible to implement, because there isn't a good profit margin in it :)
Re:The data is meaningless without real money (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, but another aspect of it is: if you are playing along with absolutely no regard for what these buttons really represent, how will you feel at the end of a month, looking at what you've potentially spent? It could be "holy crap, I can't afford this," or it could be "that wasn't as bad as I thought." That's extremely interesting to me, all by itself. Then add in the "how much would this pay my favourite sites", and you've got a really interesting conundrum and/or solution.
It's almost like "try before you buy", in a way. But purely for personal curiosity.
Re:Or (Score:5, Interesting)
Books and libraries are still relevant because reviewed and edited content is valuable. I was looking for info on making model train layouts and there are loads of forums and hobbyist witted that look like they were built in 1998, but nothing with a complete illustrated tutorial using materials available in my country.
Re:No actual money is involved (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably won't work. (Score:5, Interesting)
The reasoning here is sound, and the theory has been borne out over the past dozen years [openp2p.com] since this was written:
A transaction can't be worth so much as to require a decision but worth so little that that decision is automatic. There is a certain amount of anxiety involved in any decision to buy, no matter how small, and it derives not from the interface used or the time required, but from the very act of deciding. Micropayments, like all payments, require a comparison: "Is this much of X worth that much of Y?" There is a minimum mental transaction cost created by this fact that cannot be optimized away, because the only transaction a user will be willing to approve with no thought will be one that costs them nothing, which is no transaction at all... micropayments create a double-standard. One cannot tell users that they need to place a monetary value on something while also suggesting that the fee charged is functionally zero. This creates confusion - if the message to the user is that paying a penny for something makes it effectively free, then why isn't it actually free?... users will be persistently puzzled over the conflicting messages of "This is worth so much you have to decide whether to buy it or not" and "This is worth so little that it has virtually no cost to you."
Clay Shirky, 12/19/2000
Read the whole piece -- it has tons of good info. (And it's an entertaining read.)
Re:Won't work because ... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what I'd like to see (all open source of course):
1. One or more non-profit tip distributors run by associations of websites. They take money from people and distribute them participating websites on request.
2. Websites indicate their participation in the program with a special HTML tag in the head section (includes a unique ID/cheksum of the website).
3. Plugins for all the popular browsers that:
- Record visit history of participating websites locally.
- Add a button to the browser that lets the user "like" the (participating) website they're looking at.
- Whenever people have the time, they bring up their visit history which tells them how many times they visited each website since their last "tip review" and if they "liked" it.
- Still using the plugin, people chose which websites they'd like to tip and how much...
- The tipping instructions are sent to the tip distributor who adds the tips to each website's account.
- The visit history is cleared and restarted until the next "tip review."
The plugin is important. It defers the decision-making to whenever is most convenient for people. It keeps track of visited websites so people don't have to stress over remembering each and every one. The important part is that it must be open source and totally transparent and keeps everything local except for the final step of tipping.
People can either create an account with the tip distributor and deposit money into it, or they can simply pay via CC, pre-paid tip card, SMS at every tip review.