NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] NY Times Paywall: Ignoring the Micropayments Lesson from Outer Space!
NY Times Paywall: Ignoring the Micropayments Lesson from Outer Space!
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000835.html
Greetings. As you likely know by now, the New York Times paywall is
scheduled to launch in the U.S. and globally today, to, uh,
considerable controversy.
While their paywall system reportedly includes a range of exceptions
and options, the bottom line is that it is complex for users
and subject to bypass in various ways ( http://j.mp/eIMCVS [Lauren's Blog] ).
But beyond that, it is -- along with most other large news-oriented
Web subscription services paywalls -- inherently selfish by design.
It may seem strange to call the Times' paywall selfish given the
promised ability for free viewing of articles referred from other
sites. But each such view will supposedly still count against a
non-subscriber's monthly quota of 20 free "non-referral" views at the
Times site itself, and when you hit that limit, your most inexpensive
option for continued non-referred access appears to be a subscription
purchase.
By contrast, if I have an urge to read the Times on any given day, I
can pop over to a nearby newsstand and buy a single printed copy
without any muss, fuss, complications, or further obligations.
The ability to easily buy a physical "day pass" to a newspaper is of
course a model that goes back to the dawn of commercial journalism.
The beauty of a longer-term subscription model is clear enough to
newspaper publishers -- the more dollars you can lock in on a
guaranteed basis, especially for a product as essentially fungible as
news, the better for the bottom line.
Yet there is another model -- one straight from the science fiction of
outer space.
Gordon Randall Garrett's wonderful 1963 story "A World by the Tale"
tells of a human author offered what appears to be a humiliatingly low
royalty rate in exchange for galaxy-wide publication rights to his
book, courtesy of a notoriously stingy Galactic Civilization that has
recently discovered Earth. The royalty percentage? One thousandth of
one percent. ( http://j.mp/eDLkz3 [Gutenberg] )
But when his first royalty check arrived, the author was stunned by
the enormous size of the resulting amount, and the information that
such large sums could be expected to continue paying to him throughout
the rest of his life -- making him even by Galactic standards a very
wealthy man.
What he hadn't considered initially, is that the galaxy is a
very big place.
And so, relatively, is the Internet.
There have been various attempts at implementing "micropayment"
systems on the Net -- the equivalent of that seemingly tiny Galactic
royalty offer.
None have been notably successful, due to a variety of technological,
logistical, or other reasons. But the concept is still very sound,
especially for the maturing Internet of today.
How many millions of people might be willing to pay a penny per page
to view specific New York Times articles of interest -- or articles at
other sites?
$10 at this rate would buy 1000 page views, that a user could
distribute as desired among a wide variety of sites -- rather than
being forced to spend relatively large chunks of cash at single sites
for much greater access than they really need or want.
Instead of Internet users' limited content purchase funds being
funneled to only a few powerful, established enterprises in big
chunks, enormous numbers of users could individually spend a tiny
amount at a vast range of individual sites, which could still see
significant income based on the sheer volume of visitors.
I am not suggesting that the free, ad-based model that we've come to
enjoy on the Internet is flawed or undesirable -- but it may be at
serious risk not only due to expensive paywalls, but also as a result
of "do-not-track" efforts that seem to be unwisely barreling ahead,
without appropriate consideration of inherent complexities and
potential collateral damages.
Nor am I saying that the New York Times -- arguably the greatest
newspaper on the planet -- isn't worth paying for.
But I am suggesting that the sorts of online subscription models that
we see emerging to date are likely to benefit the few over the many.
I spend considerable time and money to operate this blog and my other
venues. I don't run ads. Are these postings worth a penny to the
average viewer -- the traditional cost of single gumball? Or -- dare
I think it -- could they even be worth, say, a full nickel?
At least in an existential sense, we're all likely doing something
very wrong if our Internet efforts aren't worth a single cent.
A widely deployed, successful, Internet micropayments system could
allow virtually all Web sites -- even very small ones who chose to use
it -- a means to compete on a playing field where Internet users could
spend individually tiny amounts to view materials of real interest,
rather than much larger amounts to purchase subscription packages
including all sorts of materials that they don't necessarily really
care about.
While most news and information sites on the Net remained free access,
this did not seem to be an issue of notable concern. But now that the
relatively expensive "big site" subscription news paywalls are going
up, it's definitely time to revisit the micropayments concept, to see
if we can create an environment where a vast range of Web sites --
rather than mainly the privileged big boys alone -- can participate in
these evolutions.
All else being equal, I'd prefer that the "free access" Internet model
continue. But the major news sites in particular seem hellbent on
ending this golden age, and frankly that's their definitely their
right -- in the main they have quite valid financial concerns.
But it would be utterly unreasonable for the rest of us to just sit by
and let these major firms suck up the entirety of content purchase
income, leaving untold millions of valuable sites effectively shut out
entirely. Micropayments may be the key to helping establish a sense
of equality in this important regard.
If the Internet is going to move toward "pay to view" -- then we
should demand that all worthwhile content providers, even the smallest
of sites, should be able to equitably participate in this ecosystem if
they wish to do so.
It is, after all, a big galaxy -- and Internet -- out there.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com