Freemium - Shmeemium (or why micro-billing is better)

In implying the penny gap can be eliminated, this article fails to account for mental transaction costs. No matter how simple a microbilling service is, there is still a mental transaction cost for deciding whether to pay or not. If my time is worth $20/hour (US average wage), and it takes me 3 seconds to read your microbilling screen and understand what you are charging, it has already cost me a penny. 3 seconds is enough time for the average reader to read 5 words. I would estimate you have about a minute to explain your service and charge for it, if you want the customer to spend a quarter on something that is worth fifty cents (or more) to them. (See <a href="http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html" rel="nofollow">http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment#Theory.2Fcriticism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment#Theory.2Fcriticism</a> for more background on mental transaction costs.)<p>If the price of your freemium service is artificially high, then you are doing it wrong. The freemium model is for services where the price of supporting free users is less than the price of other ways of informing your paying customers that you exist. (Including cases where free users contribute value.)<p>The best way to structure the freemium model is such that you only charge for things that are natural scarcities, not things that can be freely replicated. For example, charging for support (human time to solve your problem) is better than charging for features. (Existing features aren't scarce, it costs nothing to roll them out to all users. Implementing new features is scarce.)

One aspect of freemium models that you are giving seriously short shrift to is that they often have an element of value exchange to them. Additional users free or pro, make the service as a whole more valuable, if the cost of subsidizing a freegan is less than the value they contribute, it's a perfectly rational exchange. This is why craigslist, flickr and myspace were able to sustain that model, the marginal cost of an additional user is usually much less than the utility they provide to the rest of the users.<p>And that isn't even considering the value of peer production, from mutual support to people building tools within the ecosystem that is hosting them. In your spreadsheet example, the use who posts a widely used rent/own evaluation worksheet is still charged when she uses the site, even though you should be compensating her for the value she adds to the site.<p>While I like the idea of microbilling, I think it's somewhat orthogonal to freemium models.

I don't understand the logic flow of this article. First it seems to place to place freemium &#38; micro billing in opposition. I don't see why.<p>Then it goes on to describe all sorts of problems that might affect a freemium model. They can be annoying. There's a race to the bottom. There's the penny gap. paid subsidises free. All true. None universally applicable. Certainly none universally deal breakers.<p>To pick on the last one I could give this analogy that applies to many kinds of freemium businesses. Whenever you buy your brand of toothpaste (that you have been buying for 20 years) you are <i>subsidising</i> advertising to new markets in countries you don't care abut. In other cases even that analogy doesn't hold because free customers do not raise costs.<p>When finally getting back to microbilling, the solution appears to be some sort of universal easy micro billing service &#38; a cultural shift away from subscriptions towards pay-as-you-go. Fine. Good. Works for iphone apps &#38; mobile phone trivia, why not web apps?<p>What relevance does this have for business models that rely on freemium? None. No such service exists at this point. The fact that the proposed solution is a universal one, points to the fact that WebApp companies shouldn't roll their own.<p>I agree that micro billing is a good idea. I don't see what it has to do with freemium.

I can see the potential for micro-billing in B2B services, but I'm quite certain micro-billing will never be successful in the consumer market. The problem as I see it is that most potential customers will see micro-billing as the very embodiment of "nickle and dimed to death". Which is not very surprising. Usage based billing is seldom ever popular with consumers, who have historically chosen flat-fee options in overwhelming numbers whenever given the choice.

Actually, the ads often help to keep the price of freemium not as high as was mentioned in the article.<p>Also the Micro-Payments are good for sellers because the customer have less control over what he is consuming, because it's a pain in the %$# check every time how is your consume.<p>So having less control over your consume the pop up comes faster :D

i don't necessarily disagree, there just needs to be a powerful, useful, efficient, central microbilling service before it actually catches on.<p>i also don't necessarily agree with the assumption that the paid versions are artificially higher. the point of the free version is for the ads to more or less cover the costs.

He just "assumes" the step of a clearinghouse for payment information exists and stores the users payment information. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort exists, and would be quite a big hurdle to get over.

Isn't the model this article describes exactly what Amazon does with AWS?

Excellent article. Freemium is much better for both consumers and producers:<p>Consumers avoid annoying ads, and they get something they don't mind paying for (one reason being that it costs so little).<p>Producers just win all around. :)