Serendipity35

A Nielsen survey out this month on paid Web site content asked those surveyed about what they will pay for (like news and entertainment) that you now get online for free.

They were not looking at the idea of getting "educated" (learning minus the degrees and certifications) online for free using open courseware and other resources - but maybe we can draw some parallels.

They surveyed 27,000 consumers (52 countries) and, not surprisingly, 85% prefer that free content remain free. Drilling down to specifics, the content they were more willing to consider paying for includes things they already pay for in some way like games, music, movies and video.

What are they least likely to want to pay for? User-generated content - the homegrown video, podcasts and writing (like this blog).

Of course, media companies are most interested in whether or not we will pay for news (including traditional formats like TV channels, newspapers and magazines that we are used to using that has been essentially free online. Content that has a cost to produce needs to make back that cost and a profit to survive.

The business models are not really determined yet. Payment models include subscriptions, individual transactions and, more recently, micropayments which got the best response in the survey (though only 52% favored it). And an easy-to-use payment system isn't here yet either.

I'm sure most cable/satellite subscribers would prefer a cheaper menu option that let them choose and pay for just the channels they watch. But, like buying a new car, "packages" that include the high and low demand items are what we have now.

Advertising has been the way to support media from newspapers to TV for as long as the mediums have existed. That won't go away too soon. Everyone is used to it. When I was a kid, watching TV on a set connected to an antenna on the roof, it certainly seemed free to me except for the electricity. I never thought of the commercials as a business model. When cable came, there were no commercials, but I paid more directly with a monthly bill. I actually might prefer the old model.

It is clear in the survey that users say they are not willing to have advertising AND pay a subscription - although that's what I do when I watch the commercials on CBS, NBC and others via a paid cable service.

We are used to paying for an education whether it's obvious like a college tuition or somewhat hidden in our local, county, state and Federal taxes. Does that mean the pay-to-learn model will survive? Or will the degree and certification model lose its stature as employers become willing to hire people who have the knowledge no matter where they obtained it?

A few other things that come out of the survey -

78% say that if they already pay for content (subscriptions or services), then its online content should be free. (Pay for the face-to-face course, get the online version free?)

71% believe that in order to justify a payment, the online content would need to be of a higher quality than what is available for free. (A standard I wish schools already demanded for their online courses.)

Most (62%) also feel that if they buy content, they own it and should be able to to copy or share. That never was accepted by the music industry, and I doubt that education would accept it either. Not that the music industry benefited from that hard line.

The Nielsen study is by no means the last word on the subject. And it remains to be seen if consumers are saying one thing but will wind up doing another.

The survey likely serves as confirmation of what most of us already knew. That’s because we’re all consumers as well, and most of us have an aversion to paying for stuff that we’ve usually gotten for free.

Read the Nielsen survey (PDF)