No Case for Micropayments

I know everyone has taken his or her turn, and now it’s mine turn to say, “Nielsen is wrong!” Let me break this down by taking a couple quotes from his “The Case for Micropayments” article and explain why I disagree.

First, Nielsen wrote, “ Ultimately, those who pay for something control it. Currently, most websites that don't sell things are funded by advertising. Thus, they will be controlled by advertisers and will become less and less useful to the users.” Network television is paid for by advertising, and although we pay monthly fees for our cable or satellite television, it is arguably also controlled by advertising. These media still serve their purpose and are useful to those who watch them even though they are funded primarily by advertising.

Second, Nielsen wrote, “On the Web, users should not worry about a cent per page. If a page is not worth a cent, then you should not download it in the first place.” Isn’t the whole idea of surfing the web to discover new sites and new sources of information and/or entertainment? In many cases, how will I know if a site is worth even a penny until after I have viewed it?

Nielsen also parallels micropayments for Internet usage to electricity payments. I don’t think that’s a very good analogy. Let me give you a better one. Do you like to flip channels on the television? Well, let’s say that every time you change the channel, you will be billed a few cents and that way you won’t have to watch ads. Personally, I’ll deal with the ads in order to keep my money in my pocket.