Go on, take a guess. 50%? 25%? How about 5%? A study released by the University of Southern California at the Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism, “Surveying the Digital Future”, has turned up some interesting data, especially when it comes to paying for social services like twitter:
Although nearly half of those polled in a new USC survey said they have used free micro-blogging sites like Twitter, 0% said that they would be willing to pay for such a service. “Such an extreme finding that produced a zero response underscores the difficulty of getting Internet users to pay for anything that they already receive for free,” said Jeffrey Cole, director of the Center for Digital Future at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism.
That’s right, 0%. Wow! I’ve never been an advocate for conversation via twitter but even I’m surprised by how low that number is. Allowing for a margin of error and that 42.8% of all statistics are useless it’s still surprisingly low.
The survey also looked at the effectiveness of Web advertising:
The survey of 1,981 Internet users also found that half “never” click on web advertising, with 70% saying they find it “annoying.” However, 55% said they would rather see web advertising than pay for content.
The survey is based on “an absolutely unique data base that completely captures broadband at home, the wireless Internet, on-line media, user-generated content and social networking.”
The Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School tracked a representative sample of the American population for over nine years, watching as people moved on-line and then from modems to broadband. The project also carefully tracked those who drop off the net each year and whether they return and, if so, when and what brings them back. At the end of nine years, it has provided them with an unparalleled view of the non-users who do not go on-line.
To read highlights of the report, click here.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I am not surprised. It goes back to “why buy the cow when the milk is free.”
I believe that whether people are willing to pay for an on-line service is a question of “would like” or “must have”.
Services such as Twitter and Facebook are would like, and I can not imagine that people will ever pay for these.
All though services such as newspapers content are “must have” content, the problem is that not only have to many of these been giving the material away for free, and it is now extremely difficult for them to introduce payment models, but also that the news comes that they publish now a days seems to come from the same agencies and that web users simply can go to other sites and find the same material for free.
If newspapers went back to the good old times where they distinguished them self by having journalists creating unique in-depth content, I honestly believe they could sell their services and create a profitable on-line presence based on subscription or per article access, rather than “just” relying on advertising.
But hey, what do I know – I am just a user of these services and not a spoiled newspaper publisher who believe that WWW is just a necessary evil which has almost ruined the good business model that have served society so well for so many years!
I would pay something for it — IF it meant that it would be free of spam. I’m guessing if they charged for it, it would curb 90% of the spam.