A simple way to look at micropayments for content such as on websites: If micropayments are used in addition to ads-- perhaps for premium content or premium si

A simple way to look at micropayments for content such as on websites: If micropayments are used in addition to ads-- perhaps for premium content or premium sidebar sister content -- then micropayments are acretive to publishers and the only problem is convenience of payment. If microtrans are to replace ads (or be offered as a choice to users instead of watching ads), then In order to embrace micropayments, publishers would need to see themselves making nearly as much from micropayments as from ads. Say a typical publisher gets a $10 eCPM aggregate across all the ads they show on a page. That is 1c per pageview. So, would some users pay 1c per article? Say users read 100 articles a day across many sites: would they be fine paying $1/day to access all this content? The actual range might be anywhere from a fraction of a penny to several cents per article/page, but we're in the ballpark. To me, this sort of system could work. As a user, I'd go for it. But payment needs to be automatic and frictionless (after I authorize a site to charge me for views). Those best positioned to enable such a microtransaction payments are browser makers. Next up are as blockers. Maybe Facebook as they aggregate so much content now, though this conflicts with their model. Google AdWords+Double-click could also introduce a user-facing option to disable ads in favor of micropayments which users could purchase in-bulk and then spend through over time by viewing pages, but this too would conflict with Google Ads' model and network effects in many ways. A third-party new entrant could also do this. Perhaps you'd subscribe or fill a wallet with a service which content publishers integrate and get authorized to deduct fractional-pennies per view from. This sort of model would be a welcome change, from my POV. And the economics seem workable from a publisher's POV as well.