Posts tagged reader

Some thoughts on Nielsen’s paper on paid content online

Nielsen just published a research on the behavior of consumers concerning paid content on the net. Although it doesn’t tackle directly the e-books market, it provides some very useful insights on the distribution of content online, and may spark some ideas on possible business models. Any result is, of course, not the final word on it, as the landscape is changing any minute. Still, let’s sum up a few topics.

Contents for which people are more likely to pay are those for which they already pay offline. More specifically, music and games are the two segments where the majority of people already paid for content. They are also two of the most established segments, that have been selling paid content for longer, but are also (I’m guessing here, but it should be a safe bet) the two segments that appeals the most to younger people.
And – see page 3 – younger people are the ones that are more willing to pay for content. Counterintuitive, as the research itself  states, but also quite interesting.
As an aside, the fact that younger people are willing to pay seems to me to confirm that there is the possibility to reach a new audience, probably younger than the usual reader.

This research doesn’t tell anything about pricing, although a few info may be inferred from various sources. For the Italian speaking reader, I’d like to point to Baionette librarie, whose latest posts recently summed up with convincing details that 9.99$ is already perceived as the price over which the consumer would think twice before paying (Il duca’s argument is far more complex than this, and he openly suggests a lower price, but for this post we can keep 9.99$ as the rough limit). Similar conclusions are reached by Antonio Tombolini in the post I also published here on Inchiostro Elettrico.

Anyway, what’s important is that people pay, and would pay, for content – and especially they pay for access to content (look at this article by James McQuivey, and think about the last paragraph…). It’s essential to understand how to give to the consumer a reason valuable enough to pay for content and the access to it because, as Nielsen’s research clearly states, “over time [consumers] will decide for themselves the value of content online”.
Once again, it’s the value to the consumer the most important asset, because the quality of the content is the key driver to a purchase, and the perceived quality must be high in order to convince a consumer to buy something. Not only, a free content is not necessarily perceived as worse than one for which there’s a price to pay.
Now, think about the quality of a typical e-book right now, and about the attempts by the industry to set a price based on the hardcover price and (in a… uhm… not really convincing way) production costs. Something must be wrong, you decide where.

On a similar topic: even if apparently it has nothing to do with books, it is interesting to see that “Should the majority of news sources put most, if not all, of their online content behind pay walls, 79% of the respondents say they would no longer go to their websites, taking it for granted they can find the same information elsewhere at no cost”.  This behavior reminds that “if the news is that important, it will find me” (source: New York Times)

Sidenote: the NYT article, but also this single piece of information from Nielsen's research, stresses the importance reached by digital word of mouth, and the way in which it works. It is true that this is valid especially for the younger generations, more keen to use social media - but they are also the ones more likely to spend money online for content. Food for thought.
Or, better still, thought for food.

The most interesting part is the general consensus among all age groups, throughout the world, that if one buys something online, he should have the right to copy it and share it with others. It’s a no-brainer, apparently, as more than 60% of the people, everywhere, answer in this manner.
This is, implicitly, a big NO WAY! to DRM. Hardly surprising, as DRM systems – especially cumbersome DRM systems that limits the possibilities of the consumer – have been rejected everywhere.

So: no DRM, quality content, low price – and a potential younger audience willing to pay.
Connecting these factors in the best possible way will be the key to success.

Walk the plank

Like everyone, I’ve been reading a lot about piracy lately.
In fact, I’ve been reading a lot about piracy in the last, let’s say, 15 years, being your usual geek in love with videogames, music, movies and so on and having had a computer since I was 5 (oh, the glory days of the Vic 20!)
I’ve listened to any kind of talk about piracy, I saw piracy evolve, and of course I used piracy more than you want to know. And still do and will continue to, like millions of people.

Every once in a while voices spring up against the dangers of digital piracy. Lately I’ve heard for example some talking about “piracy is what troubles me most with this digital thing”, and seminars are coming up among publishers to face it and fight it.

Well, isn’t it a flawed view?

Reality check: piracy exists.
Oops, I stand corrected: piracy exists and is here to stay.

The problem is not how to fight piracy (what will the correct way be, for example, MacMillan’s legalistic approach? Using DRM? Oh, Lord…), the problem is go around it, trying to make it less attractive to the consumer, because it has been proved that the consumer is willing to pay for what he perceives has value.
So the problem is creating a consumer marketplace and giving value to the content you’re selling, not protect it from reality.
It’s ok to enforce the copyright, it’s foolish to do it blindly while the world happens.

The funny thing actually is that, right now, piracy may well be a good thing, in order to spread as many e-books as possible and maybe make people used to them – it’s a sort of publicity, in some way, and maybe nothing completely new to the field: a good read on the subject is Bob’s post (and its comments) at the 26th Story.
It usually happens that “big” music albums, for example, get leaked a few days before the official release on the internet – does it actually harm sales?

As per DRM, among a wealth of examples I kindly recall the story of Stardock’s Galactic Civilizations 2, a strategy videogame that got raving reviews a few years ago: a great game that appealed to a niche of gamers. Fact is it was sold without DRM. Was it really harmed from piracy? On the contrary, it became a bestseller. Now, I don’t know if people decided to “award” Stardock’s well-marketed choice of avoiding DRM or what, but that simply is a fact. As it is a fact that a wealth of people in forums all over the world claim “oh, is [game name] protected with [DRM system name]? I will never buy it, then, I’ll download the pirated copy”.
I almost forgot: DRM does not protect from piracy, in the best scenery it just delays it – of a few minutes, usually. I’ve recently been to an interesting meeting at Apogeo publisher in Italy, where it was clearly claimed that the only one that is harmed from DRM is the consumer – in this case, the reader. If there is a closed content that I may use a few times with selected devices, and the same content that happens to be open, which one will I choose?

And this is the key of it: publishers must worry less on protection, and more on the reader.
He has the keys, he has the power.
Luckily.

(On a sidenote, I believe that more than looking at other markets, people should look a bit at the videogame market to find some viable solutions for a consumer model able to go around piracy without constraining the user with DRM, but this will be the topic of another post).