A case for micropayments
53
Are there any alternative revenue streams for content providers
Yes, the debate continues and every day we see the opponents head to head.
But for the record, just in case someone is new to the debate there are a number of camps emerging.
1. The Gated content i.e. payment walls.
(a good example is http://www.cellscience.com/journal/journalindex.asp)
2. Free . It was free to start with, so why change?
(and a good understanding of their grievances can be found here http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/18/there-we-go-again-no-micropayments-wont-save-journalism/
3. Information valet: Tell me your profile, and I’ll let you access (some) free content. (maybe)
4. Micropayments
Background: www.sprinklepenny.com
Now this is where it starts to get interesting.
Micropayments could also fall into the gated camp, and I think for this reason this is causing a lot the animosity.
The sprinklepenny approach is supporting micropayments, but not enforcing any gated rules, and making the user experience as friendly and as accessible as possible.
For the user, it is giving them the ability to make very small monetary philanthropic donations anonymously, for content
For the publisher, it should be regarded as an additional revenue stream. Individually these payments are insignificant, but once the user base increases, they will all add up to a valuable new revenue stream for the content publisher.
Most importantly it keeps the internet free and unrestricted for all.
