Pew study hints at what Web users will pay for

Dec 30, 2010

(AP) -- The Web may seem like the land of something for nothing. Free video. Free news. Even free tools such as word processing and spreadsheets.

But almost two-thirds of adult Internet users in the U.S. have paid for access to at least one of these intangible items online, according to a new from the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Whether people will pay for different types of material on the Web is among the most pressing questions facing media companies in the 21st century.

As people shift their attention to the Internet from more traditional ways of enjoying media, the companies that provide everything from movies to mystery novels want to make sure they can still get paid for what they do. The big TV networks want viewers to pay for full access to episodes of their favorite shows. Newspaper companies want readers to pay for news. want higher prices for digital editions of new releases.

The new figures from Pew suggest paying for content online is at least not a completely foreign idea for most people.

About a third of respondents said they have paid for digital music. Same for software.

Behind that came mobile apps for cell phones or tablet computers at 21 percent. Then digital games at 19 percent and newspaper, magazine or journal articles at 18 percent.

The survey found that among people who paid for content, the typical user spent about $10 a month. However, there are some extremely high-end users, such that the average among those who have paid for content is about $47 a month. That includes subscriptions and individual files downloaded or accessed.

The survey of 755 Internet users in the U.S. was conducted Oct. 28-Nov. 1 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Explore further: Big Data—for better or worse

3.5 /5 (8 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Americans spending more time with news: Pew survey

Sep 13, 2010

Americans are spending more time consuming news than a decade ago, adding online news to a diet of traditional media such as print newspapers, radio and television, according to a new survey.

Recommended for you

Facebook joins Web freedom group

4 hours ago

Facebook on Wednesday became a full member of the Global Network Initiative, a non-governmental organization promoting Internet freedom and privacy rights.

Big Data—for better or worse

9 hours ago

A full 90% of all the data in the world has been generated over the last two years. The internet companies are awash with data that can be grouped and utilised. Is this a good thing?

Risky behaviour starts young on social media: survey

10 hours ago

Australian children are accessing social media websites at an increasingly younger age, a new survey suggests, with one in five "tweens" admitting they have chatted to someone online they do not know.

Poll: Teens migrating to Twitter (Update)

May 21, 2013

Twitter is booming as a social media destination for teenagers who complain about too many adults and too much drama on Facebook, according to a new study published Tuesday about online behavior. It said ...

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

alec123456789
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2010
There is a big difference between buying music or software that is distributed via the internet then for paying for access to the New York Times website.
Doug_Huffman
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2010
Pew's devil is in the details of their survey and in the details of the wording of their questions.

I will and do buy digital restriction management DRM FREE content, content of which I become the proprietor. I use open source software where ever possible.

A differentiation of DRM music from copyrighted NYT might be challenging, but, moot because all NYT content will appear elsewhere and DRM music is post-modern trash.
epsi00
5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2010
They can charge all they want, I am not buying. simple. I still don't have an ipod, a cell phone and will not be getting an ipad or an icrap anytime soon. Music is played on local radio stations for free. news are provided by bloggers all around the world. I am paying my ISP for that. If they want to share it among themselves, it's fine with me.
Eikka
5 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010

I will and do buy digital restriction management DRM FREE content, content of which I become the proprietor.


How do you determine the price of this content?

Since it's not made artifically scarce, the supply is basically infinite while the demand is not. By all means the price should approach zero, so what's the point of paying for it? But then, who pays the author?

The point is, that you shouldn't pay for it. The digital copies are worthless - the work put into making the original is the only thing that matters; if we pay for the subsequent copies, we're basically giving the author a money printing machine that completely disconnects the value of the work from the price we collectively pay for the work and breaks the market mechanism.

We no longer know what everything is worth, so we end up paying too much. Every song is 99 cents, good or bad. Eventually enough people will buy it to make a profit regardless.

That's why this whole thing has to be re-thought.
gopher65
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
I understand that providing content costs a certain amount of money, and I'm willing to pay so that both companies and individuals cover their costs and make a reasonably sized profit, if they're offering a desirable service. (For instance I subscribe to Netflix.)

What I'm not willing to do is pay the same amount of money for a digital book (which costs essentially NOTHING for the company to create and distribute) as I am for a paperback (which costs almost as much to create an distribute as the list price on the cover suggests).

I'll buy an e-book for 1 dollar *if* almost all of that money goes to the author. I won't buy it for 14 dollars only to see 1 dollar of that go to the author and 13 dollars go to the unbelievably greedy (and completely unnecessary) publisher.
gopher65
5 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
To add on to my last comment, I think what we're seeing with attitudes toward online payments is that people are starting to recognize that publishers are increasingly becoming unnecessary. We can get content from and pay content creators directly (authors, musicians, etc), without the need for a mass-scale middleman. In the olden days this wasn't true. Now it is.

So while I think that most people understand that content creators need to be paid (or else they'll stop creating (as much) content), I also think that people don't want to see the vast majority of the money they pay for content sopped up by useless third parties, to the detriment of both the consumers and the creators of the content in question.
StarDust21
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2010
I aint gonna pay crap. Let the net free as it has always been
an_p
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2010
I aint gonna pay crap. Let the net free as it has always been


but you pay the ISP for providing access to other peoples content.

and thats more than 10 bucks a month.

its like in medieval times when somebody took money for letting you cross a bridge.

i say free the infrastructure and let authors earn their money, hence 'enlightenment'!

stealthc
not rated yet Dec 30, 2010
The internet is worth what you pay for it but what these people are charging is totally not worth it.

What sort of sucker spends $47 a month on this crap?
Simonsez
not rated yet Jan 01, 2011
I think they should not have included purchases of apps and things bought on/for mobile phone devices. The people buying that crap are not equivalent to the people paying for a "landline" internet connection where those same or similar apps are open source and free for all (who have an internet connection).

I am fairly certain numbers would indicate home internet users pay for far less.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2011
Eikka:

The situation you are talking about is caused by transition to Type 1 communication and economy.

Information technology is essentially approaching "perfect competition". We can entertain ourselves with anything really, and no longer need (or want) million dollar circus clowns. Due to the explosion in technology, economics as we know it is collapsing. These millionaire clowns will no longer be able to rake in this sort of money just to sing a 3 minute song about leaving their boyfriend/girlfriend.

More news stories

NASA: Austin, calling Austin. 3-D pizzas to go

(Phys.org) —The idea of living with 3-D printed food is neither unthinkable nor new; designers and futurists have been looking to 3-D printing as food's next frontier. In 2012, there was news that the Thiel ...

Forecast for Titan: Wild weather could be ahead

(Phys.org) —Saturn's moon Titan might be in for some wild weather as it heads into its spring and summer, if two new models are correct. Scientists think that as the seasons change in Titan's northern hemisphere, ...

New cave-dwelling arachnids discovered in Brazil

Two new species of cave-dwelling short-tailed whipscorpions have been discovered in northeastern Brazil, and are described in research published May 22 in the open access journal PLOS ONE by Adalberto Santos ...