 |
   |
Visit min's sister site:  |
|
|
|
|
THE MONEY SHOT
Users Will Pay…When the Online Content Gets Better In a global survey of 27,000 media consumers, Nielsen found that paid models for games, movies, music and some TV programming are viewed most favorably by users because they are already used to buying these media elsewhere. For instance, in the U.S. market, 9% of people say they have already paid for a theatrical film online and 43% say they would consider buying one. Nevertheless, 48% say they would not pay for a film. When it comes to games, 15% have paid online for this content and 32% would consider doing so in the future. But consumer tolerance for free sites that impose a pay wall is small. In the U.S. market, 85% of respondents said they would stop frequenting a site that asked for payment if the same information were available free elsewhere.  For magazines, the answer to the paid content question is a definite “perhaps.” When asked specifically about accessing magazine content online, only 6% say they have already paid for such content and 31% say they would consider it. If there is any good news for magazines in those stats it is that their medium fares better than newspapers, radio and online-only brands when it comes to the possibility of paying for online news.  Media moguls thus far have not convinced Americans that the quality of their online content experience is at risk if the users don’t embrace pay models. When asked if they agreed that the quality of content online will decline unless companies charge for it, only 19% agreed, while 34% had no opinion and an ominous 46% disagreed with the idea. The bar is high for the pay model. Nielsen finds that 71% of users feel that online content at the free sites they frequent now would have to be of considerably higher quality to merit payment. In other words, above all else, what consumers fail to buy online is the argument that paid models really are necessary and that the content deserves payment. These attitudes suggest that users will aggressively seek free alternatives to your content unless the content itself makes a case for its special value. COMMENTS
|
App Central min's App Central (for min subscribers only): Stay on top of mobile app developments with exclusive app reviews, analysis and data. 
Please enter the following information to have a link to The Skinny emailed to your iPhone:
White Papers
min Contests
EventsBest of the Web, April 3, 2012 min's Sales Executive of the Year Awards min Press
 Events Calendar
min's Best of the Web Awards |
.jpg)
Internet Sales Guidebook| Copyright © 2012 Access Intelligence, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Access Intelligence, LLC is prohibited. For more details please see Terms and Conditions. |
Online, packaging is a Web page where publishers retain some control, but users have short attention spans and can leave as they please. More importantly, users control how they receive their content on the Internet, such as from a search engine, feed reader, content aggregator like Digg, or social networks like Facebook. Put simply, publishers have little control over the delivery mechanism on the Web. However, for all its virtues, free content online is anything but convenient, especially on the Mobile Web.
I believe there is an opportunity for publishers to monetize their premium content by re-establishing the content, packaging, and delivery bundle Internet users are willing to pay for. The key features of such a bundle would be: personalization (it knows my likes and dislikes), multi-profile (it knows I have diverse interests and needs, which change throughout the day), intelligence (it improves each time I use it), network aware (it ties in with my social networks), and location awareness (it uses my current location to connect me with the world if I want it to).