Posted by Blendle (https://blendle.com) is often cited (example, example) as an example of why micropayments don’t work, but let’s set the record straight. There are two misconceptions in this claim that need addressing.
Primarily, Blendle is an aggregator. Any activities carried out on their website or app are distinct from the dynamics of a Publication’s audience engaging with low-cost single-article purchase options directly on the Publication’s own website or app.
It’s worth noting that over forty percent of content discovery takes place through search engines and social media. These links guide users to the original Publication’s platform, where crucially, impulse purchases occur. This crucial distinction underscores that comparing Blendle’s single-article purchases with single-article offerings in traditional newspapers is not a valid parallel. Period.
Moving on, the pricing factor dispels the notion that Blendle’s case applies to the broader landscape. Labeling twenty-five cents as a “micro-payment” for standard newspaper articles is a crude misrepresentation. Someone willing to pay that amount is likely a prospective subscriber.
The true target for single-article purchases includes individuals who can’t afford subscriptions, those with existing subscriptions to other publications, and those who prefer a more unattached reading experience. With a price tag of twenty-five cents per article, Blendle misses the mark for these groups.
The need for a “didn’t like the article” refund feature further underscores the inflated pricing, which wouldn’t be necessary if articles were priced at a more reasonable eight, ten, or fifteen cents.
Comparing Blendle to Paperview, a DRM/micropayments system, reveals the following differences:
| Blendle | Paperview |
|---|---|
| Aggregator, content within its own site/app | Integrated in Publishers paywall as a “read article” button |
| Focus on single articles and subscriptions | Empowers publishers to sell articles, editions, sections, bundles, and subscriptions |
| Content hidden in low-traffic third-party platform | Content discoverable via search engines and social media shares |
| Aggregator sets price ($0.25) | Publisher manages prices in real-time (e.g., from $0.07 up), enabling AB tests and campaigns |
| Social media shares drive aggregator traffic | Shares and links lead directly to publisher’s content |
| Higher service costs, lower margins | Lower exploration costs, higher returns |
| Limited valuable data | Consumption data integrated with traffic and consumer data, CRM integration |
| In a nutshell: | |
| Lower volume, higher prices | Volume business, lower prices |
It’s evident that the Blendle case cannot be extrapolated to validate Paperview’s value proposition. Let’s ensure we grasp the nuances before drawing conclusions!