3 ms·
Basically all the people that have the revealed preference that they’ll however grudgingly pay with their attention than tossing down cash for most content.
by ghaff 2y ago
Basically all the people that have the revealed preference that they’ll however grudgingly pay with their attention than tossing down cash for most content.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoThese people do exist, but there's also the strong friction against filling out all your personal information (including credit card info) into every or entertainment site you thought interesting and then agree to some term with auto-renewal, etc. etc. Like maybe it just had the one good article/video/recipe or whatever. This is really an unworkable solution. For a pay-per-use internet sites to work, the payment has to be cheap, easy, trustworthy, and fast. This does not yet exist.
- ghaff 2y agoMicropayments have been tried through third party networks but they’ve never worked. Mental transaction costs is one explanation. People want “free” is probably the other.
- ndriscoll 2y agoSaying "people want free" strikes me as a warped view of the dynamic. It always seems presumptuous to me to think that people would be willing to pay to read what you have to say (or watch your video, etc.) merely because you said it. Most authors online aren't Socrates. Ads on the web are mostly on sites centered around idle distractions/entertainment. People pay exactly what that sort of "content" is worth: nothing.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> Micropayments have been tried through third party networks but they’ve never worked. Never worked? Or weren't good enough (fast, trustworthy, easy, cheap) for the purpose? I don't think its an easy problem to solve.