Micropayments: Trying to hold on to old models

During the weekly What's New in News podcasts, the issue of micropayments comes up fairly frequently. Long after we've dismissed it, after we've had a reputable guest dismiss it, the journalism community is still fascinated with the concept of charging you to get the information you need.

Here's the issue: We don't get news from a web site for free. Beyond the fact that ISP's are usually expensive as it is, news web sites come with ads. Lots of ads. Interactive ads, ads that can expand to take up the entire screen, display ads, box ads, text ads, and any other form of advertising. The cost to click on a web site has already, in some small part, been paid. And now you want to take some money from me, too?

Newspapers once made a questionably ethical practice of charging for subscriptions and display advertising, making a large profit margin that many other industries did not see. Now on the internet, most web sites do not charge for subscriptions. Ads still exist. Just like they have on radio and TV, which did not charge for subscriptions but still existed more or less okay.

Are micropayments a way to generate revenue? That's certainly the idea. Is it fair? I'd argue no. It's not like iTunes, where I'll listen to a track over and over again. A news article has little repeat value. There was a house fire? I'll read it once, maybe twice, and then its done, over. I'm not going to sit down at the beach with a news article I paid for three years ago to relax. Its not entertainment, its knowing what goes on in the world around me.

I hope news organizations try micropayments. And I hope they fail miserably. Then we can stop this silly argument once and for all.