The Year for Micropayments?

Numismatics_and_Notaphily_iconI love end of year predictions and the Internet is full of them now. I just read one prediction from Walter Isaacson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute who predicts that 2015 is finally the year for micropayments. Micropayments are just what they sound like, and it’s the idea of being able to pay tiny amounts, maybe a few cents or even fractions of a penny for access to content on the Internet.

I have a friend Danny who has been predicting micropayments for at least ten years. He sees all of the benefits, and there are many. Micropayments don’t have to be really tiny and, for example, they could finally enable every vending machine to be accessible by cellphone. But there have always been reasons why micropayments haven’t taken off.

A more likely use for micropayments is as an easy for to pay for original content. For instance, with micropayments musicians could sell music directly to the public and cut out the middleman services like Spotify or iTunes. If people are willing to pay something like 5 cents per song then artists can make a lot more money with micropayments than they are getting today as royalties. It’s also a way for authors to sell short stories, essays and even novels.

But perhaps the use that most have in mind for micropayments is as a way to make money from written online content. I know that I read a lot of articles online about tech, politics and sports. But there are articles on pay services that I can’t get today because I am not willing to pay for a premium service like the $9.95 that the Washington Post or New York times charges for total access to their papers each month. They will give out a few free reads monthly and then you are done for the month when you hit the limit. Most of the article I read are free, but I could see paying a few cents per article everywhere if that would stop me from being blocked at more and more sites that want me to pay a bit subscription price. I don’t read enough articles as any one site today to justify becoming a premium customer, but I would gladly spend a dollar or two at each of these sites each month.

But there are reasons that micropayments haven’t been used. Isaacson sees micropayments being realized through bitcoins and there are already some bitcoin payment systems such as ChangeTip, BitWall, BitPay and CoinBase. But I can’t see the general public ready yet to accept bitcoins. In 2014 bitcoins lost 52% of their value during the year and I don’t see people willing to put money into something that might change in value overnight. I know that if I sat aside $30 per month to pay for online content that I would be really annoyed to see that a few dollars of that value had evaporated before I used it. Further, I read every month about Bitcoin exchanges getting robbed and it doesn’t feel secure enough to me yet to feel like a currency substitute.

But there are other payment methods and micropayments could be transacted through PayPal, credit cards or bank accounts. However, until now all of these institutions have wanted significant transaction fees that are higher than the micropayment, and so this is not going to happen through the old money system. In a way this is a shame because there is a lot of money to be made with micropayments. Today credit card companies make roughly 3% for every transaction they process and there is no reason they couldn’t do the same with micropayments. But I am sure that they are intimidated by the work of tracking and reporting these payments to customers as well as the hassle of having customers disputing payments of a penny on their credit cards, so they have not been willing to enter the micropayment arena.

There is also the issue of fraud and security. Somebody could get really rich by billing everybody in a micropayment environment a nickel per month and almost nobody would notice. But let hundreds of people do the same thing and customers would quickly lose faith in the security of the system. I am guessing that it is going to be a lot more tempting to felons to bill tiny amounts than it is to undertake large credit card fraud, and so micropayment fraud could become rampant if there is not some way up front to stop it. That means having some ironclad validation process in place such as biometrics at the point of purchase.

But the biggest barrier to micropayments is human behavior. Numerous polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans are not willing to pay anything for content. Younger generations are more willing than older, and higher income people are more willing than lower income people. But even in those groups there is a lot of mental resistance to micropayments. In economic terms this is called the relevant cost and people seem to have a mental barrier against making that click on-line that authorizes a payment, no matter how small. The issue seems to be one of relative value and people have a natural fear of being disappointed and paying for something that doesn’t meet their expectations.

This was first documented a decade ago in a paper I read from Nick Szabo titled “Micropayments and Mental Transaction Costs”. His primary point was that the mental cost – that decision to make that click to purchase often exceeds and even dwarfs the computational cost of the item being purchased, which equals the value it provides less the transaction cost. He says that people hesitate and agonize over spending tiny amounts of money just as much as they do over spending larger ones.

I know that I discard two or three articles for every one that I read. I will be attracted to an article based on its title, but often within a few words I will see that it is just spitting back something that was widely reported elsewhere, or that it is poorly written, or that it is short and a waste of time. I know that if I was paying for content, then paying for such worthless content would become annoying and might make me slow down on my reading. And that is counter to what micropayments are hoping to stimulate.

4 thoughts on “The Year for Micropayments?

  1. One more piece on the same mostly mythical problems with small online payments and the same misguided references.

    First, it is Nick Szabo not Scabo. Second, his article contained “intuitive arguments” for why micropayments (those worth 1/1000th of a dollar or less) had not succeeded (as of 2001). Szabo did not provide any empirical evidence what his mental transaction cost is or would be for virtual goods, His basic thesis was that technology alone will not lower the so called hassle factor to achieve micropayments. But again, he was talking about payments in the range of 1/1000th of a dollar not the small online payments we call micropayments now: 25 or 50 or 99 cents per transaction.

    It was Chris Anderson and Clay Shirky who first used Szabo’s arguments — or misused them — to claim that any small payment will never work because of the mental effort. But Amderson and Shirky are gurus of “free”. Their claims are purely ideological. There is no evidence that the mental transaction cost of a, say, 5 or 10c payment is more than the payment itself. To the contrary, given the choice, users prefer to pay smaller amounts on-demand rather than spend tens or even hundreds of dollars on subscriptions.


    • I cited the Szabo paper because it is still being widely cited by others including several cites over the last year. I guess it goes to show that ideas are the Internet are hard to kill.

      While nobody is talking any more about micropayments of a tiny fractions of a cent, there is still need to have payments for things that are much smaller than 25 or fifty cents. As somebody who reads 50 – 100 articles a day (and of which maybe a third are actually useful), I would change my behavior a lot rather than spend 25 or 50 cents per article. Any news site that charges that much is not going to gather many reads except an article that others identify as a must read. Apple has certainly perfected the art of taking payments of 50 cents to a dollar, but the gap is still there for payments set a nickel.


      • Nothing’s wrong with Szabo’s piece; his thesis is sound just as sound is behavioral accounting developed by Richard Thaler, on which Szabo’s metal transaction cost (MTC) has been based. However, to say that micropayments as we know them now (small online payments of 5 to 99 cents each) do not work becasue of the high MTC is a misunderstanding. The fact that so many critics of micropayments quote Szabo’s work does not change a thing here, and it is better not to repeat the same bogus claims Shirky and Anderson made to promote their ideology of “free.” Small online transactions work just fine. Thanks to innovative technologies they can be as small as 1c or — as the Bitcoin protocol shows — even a fraction of a cent without being costly or difficult to use.



  2. One benefit that could arise out of micropayments – if well implemented – is that many of the sites that are simply copy cats or generate poorly written articles based on other articles might disappear…

    Like you, I’m tired of the splashy headlines with nothing in the article that is compelling, new, relevant or in some cases even factual.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s