Pew Study Hints At What Web Users Will Pay For

NEW YORK — 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 survey 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. Book publishers 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.

Comments

[GerryS]

10:35 PM on 01/03/2011

FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE,

FREE---------------

[Angelus2007]

06:56 PM on 01/03/2011

I know for me, I pay my $15 a month for my online game, and buy all my PCs games from sites like Steam and download them. I have bought apps and music, although I use pandora alot so don't buy a ton of music unless I really like a song.

[Clarabell]

03:18 PM on 12/31/2010

A lot of newspapers are providing their papers for practically free -- just for the numbers (subscribers which bring in advertisers). My husband subscribed to a local paper a couple of months ago at a local festival (for $10 a year, no kidding). And then we decided we had too many papers coming in and asked them to cancel. We did not expect a refund :-)). We had to call them at least 4 times to get the paper stopped.

[voidstar]

02:02 PM on 12/31/2010

And what is the average income of these "users"? How much are they paying for basic access? Do they realize they are already paying for the internet? Their devices will be lost or broken and hopelessly out of date in just a couple years. And no page that shows any kind of advertisement is actually "free" either. "I'll buy that for a $1!"

[TCPITS]

12:59 PM on 12/31/2010

My local library has thousands of books, hundreds of CDs and DVDs -- all for free. They have meeting rooms for social groups and several dozen computers connected to the Internet. also free. I suppose the republicans will have to privatize libraries before they can force us to buy Internet content.

[3dtrix]

12:54 PM on 12/31/2010

This little article packs an ENORMOUS lesson relative to the veracity and usefulness of polls - the single largest generator of revenue on the web - porn - isn't even MENTIONED. At all.

That's like reading poll results about fast food that don't mention hamburgers.

People will read the article, take in the information (which is obviously utterly useless) at face value, file the results away in their factoid memory - and move on to the next suspect offering of information.

What does that tell you about other polls?

[arcanepsyche]

01:08 PM on 12/31/2010

Well, I'm going to go ahead and assume this poll specifically excluded porn from its premise. It seem pretty common sense to assume that's what happened.

[3dtrix]

01:14 PM on 12/31/2010

Why would you assume that? Is it stated anywhere? If one is going to make speculative assumptions, I'd assume it's a safer bet that there were no responders to the poll honest enough to admit they'd paid for adult content - or the responders were savvy enough to get their fill of that content for free...

[Solymer]

12:24 PM on 12/31/2010

The internet is for pr0n!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpdCJKPHzh8

[Jalene Eden]

09:52 AM on 12/31/2010

Wow what a lazy meaningless survey, 755 really that's the best they could do? That's not a survey. Now if they surveyed 755,000 internet users the survey most likely would have showed much different results.

[TCPITS]

12:53 PM on 12/31/2010

Do you understand the concept of a random sample?

[Kringle]

06:27 PM on 12/30/2010

755 Internet users HARDLY makes a sampling that has any meaning.

[molomolo]

02:18 PM on 12/31/2010

That depends upon the sampling technique (if any) involved. It could actually be a quite valid sample. (But most probably is not.)

[slmwhr]

09:37 PM on 12/31/2010

Random sample has nothing to do with the validity of the questions asked to the information sought.

[GerryS]

10:36 PM on 01/03/2011

I know marketers that use 300 or less surveys, and call it valid-------------

[Bruckley]

12:17 PM on 12/30/2010

Don't pay for digital content!

[Adam Story]

06:52 PM on 12/30/2010

Your avatar wants the chat rooms free.

[CheapTrick]

12:28 AM on 12/31/2010

Why not?

[ProudToBeVeryLiberal]

10:42 AM on 12/30/2010

Call me old fashioned, but I'm still sticking with newspapers, paper books, music CD's and Blue Ray/DVD movies. The only digital "content" I'm buying every month is a Netflix subscription. There's nothing on Hulu Plus I can't get from Netflix, though I sometime use the free Hulu. Oh yes, I might have bought a couple of Android apps.

[Roshi98]

10:57 AM on 12/30/2010

Netflix's streaming library is pretty thin, though. I've had the service since it was launched but have been very frustrated with how infrequently new movies are posted for streaming. That said, if you like 1950's and 1960's B movies they have a decent selection of those.

[ProudToBeVeryLiberal]

11:13 AM on 12/30/2010

I'm mostly into indie and foreign movies/documentaries, Netflix has a good selection, especially if you don't limit your subscription to streaming. It certainly beats your average BD/DVD store or rental. Yes, if you're into new releases, Netflix pretty much sucks, as they're always "very long wait" or "long wait" for at least a couple of months.

[no exit]

03:21 PM on 12/31/2010

Yes, and it seems to take forever before new shows hit Netflix.

[fjpoblam]

03:30 PM on 12/30/2010

Hear, hear! Nothing like a dead-tree book, most especially for lending (giving) to a spouse or friend. Then, there's the comfort of lying down with a paperback in dim light at bedtime or on a beach under an umbrella with a daiquiri. And you don't have to worry about holding it wrong or dropping it wrong! Not to mention plugging it in when the screen goes dim from lack of juice, or holding it just right to avoid screen glare. Or smudges.

[Karen Robertson]

06:20 AM on 12/31/2010

Holding a book or a newspaper in your hands, thumbing the pages...there is an intimacy of reading print vs. online.

[TCPITS]

12:55 PM on 12/31/2010

and you can read it in the bathtub or swimming pool.

[Cael]

10:41 AM on 12/30/2010

I love the, publishers want higher prices for digital books. Give me a break, there is 0 overhead for ebooks that is why they should be cheaper. They just want a higher profit while continuing to screw the Writer.

0 distribution costs
cost to type out one copy of the ebook
0 cost of production and materials.

Yet they think they can justifying the same cost of a hardcover, talk about killing the ebook market before it even starts. FYI publishers, you do this you guaranteee piracy will go through the roof on ebooks and you will get alot less.

People will pay what they deem fair, if you try to rip them off, steal from them, they will have no problems stealing from you.

[HappyMarsden]

11:20 AM on 12/30/2010

Right on!

[endearingnoises]

12:35 AM on 12/31/2010

I was skeptical as I too enjoy the look and feel of a real book, but after trying the kindle I was very impressed with what they were able to do. I spent all day reading one of my favorite books on a kindle and didn't get a headache (which was a big concern of mine considering it's an electronic device I was to be staring at).

I am hoping that with the popularity of devices like amazon's kindle on the rise, we'll see a revolution with books similar to what we have seen with music in the past.

Imagine a website where writers all over the world can publish their work at either no cost or minimal cost. Those writers could then allow users to download their work or samples of their work (ie the first couple chapters of a book) for free and then view them on their handheld device.

Writers then have the ability to offer their work for free or to charge a reasonable amount for each download without the publishers getting in the way. I love supporting artists and writers but hate that so much of the money I pay for their products goes to the undeserving publishers and record companies. Both of which, go so far as to heavily influence the artist/writer's work and ruin it in the interest of money.

[songbookz]

10:08 AM on 12/30/2010

I know that I regularly pay for ebooks, audiobooks, hulu plus and netflix streaming and have purchased mp3s and some software - but I absolutely refuse to pay just to access some website.

[ForeignerPT]

09:49 AM on 12/30/2010

The problem doesn't lies on if you want to pay for content or not, but on how much do you want to pay for internet content. Surely not as much as for print content, because there is no print costs nor delivery costs.