Micropayments: Social exclusion?
Running a web site that relies on advertising as its only source of income has presented some interesting challenges. Over time, various users have suggested that we should be offering subscriptions or taking donations as a way to fund the site, and maybe use this as an option to allow individuals to opt out of advertising.
Whilst there are no widely used micro-payment solutions around so the feasibility of such a system would still be questionable, it raised some concerns about impact on society if the net moves towards this system to replace advertising.
Let’s assume that when visiting an information website, you pay 5 pence (say 10 cents for the Americans) per month to access that site. Now this may be regarded by many as a wholly reasonable price, and everyone can afford 5p can’t they? Well yes maybe, but what if they visit lots of websites.. If the fee was based on usage of a site, then it would need to be higher. Maybe frequent users pay £1/month ($1.90).. but with a dozen sites that’s a significant income loss to those on very low incomes who could most benefit from the Internet.
Now some will argue that this would be a choice for users who can decide they will pay to not watch adverts, but my question would be, would advertisers be interested in targeting those who can’t afford to buy an opt-out from advertising anyway since their disposable income would be lower? I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it poses an interesting social exclusion question to any changes in how web sites are funded and we might find separate search engines for developing countries as they could not afford to pay the same rates as those in developed countries.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Rather than using a pay-per-use model, what about a donation model? There are plenty of sites out there that use this model with success. I personally prefer this model and give money to sites that are non-profit that I get enjoyment out of. Or in the case of boingboing.net where I can’t donate I make a point of buying a tee shirt to help keep their site running.
The thinkbroadband.com site has plenty of committed fans and I think that they would gladly reach into their pockets if they knew it would keep the site impartial and active.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
My point about advertising models was more general and not just applied to AG/TBB.. Because of our targetting I think we have a bit less of a probelm as we can adapt to other kinds of systems.. But I don’t think donations would provide sufficient income long term to achieve what we want to do with the resources we’ve put in recently which we want to only increase. Also I don’t want on our behalf to be seen as ‘asking for charity’.. We operate on an unusual basis where revenue has not been a primary factor, although I think that may need to change if we employ more people etc. and take the step into something else, however I’m conscious the value in what we do is in the fact our advice /is/ independent.. I would not want to lose that.. at any cost. I don’t think ad blocking is an issue at the moment but I think generally it’s a potential problem.. Television has already seen some issues with PVR recorders allowing “ad skipping” which is really no different.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:59 pm
You seem to be suggesting that the internet is a social right, like housing and food? Surely that cant be correct.