4 ms·
I read an article once that argued the big problem with microtransactions was the transaction cost imposed on users. For the sites, sure, everything can be aut
by xyzzy123 8y ago
I read an article once that argued the big problem with microtransactions was the transaction cost imposed on users.
For the sites, sure, everything can be automated. But even in the best case of good browser ui/ux support the burden shifted to users would be massive.
The cognitive cost of trying to decide whether to spend 10c on an article I haven’t read yet costs me way more than 10c. Man that article sucked. Did I just get ripped off by clickbait again?
This argument is what convinced me that straight per-article “microtransactions” will never take off for very low value things on the web.
EDIT: found it: http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/31/costs-of-micropayments/ http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/31/costs-of-micropayme... - Think it was Nick Szabo.
What’s scary to me is that the one “successful-ish” application we have for microtransactions is mobile gaming. Imagine a huge ecosystem of different beans, gems, flooz, widgets or whatever, and all the dark ux patterns to get people to spend them, and also to hide how much they are spending from people.
- cestith 8y agoI would absolutely pay $10 a month to an aggregator like HN or /. that then paid publishers a portion of that based on article rank and/or number of clicks through.
- xyzzy123 8y agoYes, agree that fixed-price deals with publishers / aggregators are tenable. Spotify works for people, for example. The original argument was essentially that there was a minimum transaction size that was cognitively viable at scale.
- cestith 8y agoI understand it's about cognitive costs. What I propose makes the cognitive load of actual monetary payment a single decision per month. I pay X. Let the aggregator and the publishers automatically figure out every little fractional detail.
- michaelt 8y agoIf the objective of paying is to make the web better and reward quality content, you don't want two pages of clickbait to pay more than one page of watergate-level investigative reporting. And any automated system to tell clickbait from quality journalism will incentivise people to trick it. So at the very least, you need a refund button.
- mygo 8y agothey could do it like medium “claps”. No claps, no money. Clap as long as you want. At the end of each month your $10 is divided up by the number of claps you gave. And if this isn’t for you, then go with ads or be paywalled.
- cestith 8y agoAn upvote button and a flag button I think might do the trick.
- wool_gather 8y agoWell, Spotify works for the consumer. For the musicians, it's mostly advertising, not a useful source of income.
- tomjen3 8y agoWould it change if there was a button at the bottom of the article, that you could click for an instant refund, no questions asked? Honestly it almost seems to be worth trying, the potential upshot is _huge_.
- tcmb 8y agoblendle.com, which I mentioned earlier in this thread, has this instant-refund feature. I've used it a few times when an article was disappointing, or when there were technical problems (digitized article cut off the second half of the print version). Seems to work for them, though I don't know their revenue/profit numbers.