Monday Note

Death reports of paid-for models on the Internet have been greatly exaggerated. Granted: the network’s genome carries the “free” nucleotide.  As in both freedom and free goods and services. Like it or not, its publicly funded origins (universities and the Pentagon) led to the emergence of widely adopted services such as search engines or Wikipedia.  In turn, these have sealed the fate of the paid-for model as the dominant one. Right. I intentionally emphasize dominant. Because like everywhere else, hybrid forms are likely to emerge.
.
In the newsmedia sector, we’ve seen many attempts to make readers pay for Internet content. From Slate to the New York Times, almost every publisher tested its own recipe. They all came back to free. Truth is: the fully paid-for model doesn’t work online, unless it is: a) highly specialized (financial information and services, for instance), or b) provides unarguable value added (e.g. premium dating, tax or accounting services).  Now the free model is facing a new hurdle: with this recession, advertising is suffering way more than expected. Further, alarming trends preceded the recession: click-through rates were falling, and the display ad system was labeled as a no-future thing. Now, the stream of ads is drying up quickly: double-digit drops are not uncommon.  All business models built on advertising are now in grave peril.
.
Take Facebook. The tip of the iceberg is shines brightly: 100 million users, most of them active, a trillion page views per year, about two hours spent per month and per user.  (Write down “engagement”, a new word, soon to be the de rigueur metric.) As it turns out, this assiduous crowd loves photography: 300,000 images are uploaded every second, creating by far the biggest photo library in the world with more than 10 billion images, four times Flickr‘s.
.
Under the surface (the huge part of the iceberg, expenses), numbers are equally staggering:
-    13.000 servers were running few months ago, and analysts say the company will need 50,000 machines next year (no wonder why Rackable Systems, the leading provider of datacenter equipment enjoys a 44%  growth for Q2 08′ vs. Q3 07, it draws 17% of its revenue from Facebook)
-    a $1m monthly electricity bill
-    another half million per month for bandwidth
-    the 2 terabytes of data (mostly photos) uploaded every day require the purchase of one NetApp 3070 (a mammoth storage systems)  each week
-    maintaining this infrastructure, dealing with the output of  half million developers, requires a big staff.  For this activity only, Facebook ‘s headcount is between 700 and 800, costing about $80m a year.
.
In other words, Facebook is burning cash like a furnace.
.
What about the coal, you might ask? Good question. Advertising was supposed to feed the beast. Which leads us back to this note’s paragraph #2: a shrinking supply of ads, a superb ignorance of the target group (just look at your kids — or yourself –  how often do you click on a banner?) As a result, the financial community keeps raising questions. Emarketer estimates the 2008 revenue of Facebook to be about $265m. Unlikely to be enough to cover expenses. According to Techcrunch, most of the $500m raised by Facebook is already gone, and the company would turn to Dubai investors to get a cash infusion.
.
Facebook is learning the hard way that eyeballs, once they are counted by millions, are expensive to serve. What’s the solution?
.
The online magazine Slate came up with an interesting idea: charging people. In fact, a small fraction of them. Introducing another flavor of the hybrid model: a tiny proportion of users paying a fee that will subsidize the vast majority of non-paid ones. This is the idea outlined in this story “A radical Business Plan for Facebook”
“Judging from some of the folks in my social network, wrote Farhad Manjoo, a sizable minority of Facebook users have hundreds of “friends” and check in to the site multiple times a day—call them superactive users. Let’s imagine that Facebook became a tiered service. A free plan would limit you to 200 friends, one status update per day, or some other non-Draconian combination of restrictions. But for $5 a month, the limits would be lifted. Certainly, many users would balk; tens of thousands would join Facebook groups to protest the new pay model. Let’s assume that 95 percent of users will refuse to pay a dime. That still leaves 5 percent, or 5 million people, to pay $60 a year. That’s $300 million in the bank”.
.
Farjoo confesses to be inspired by David Heinemeier Hansson, a developer for 37signals, and advocate of the paid-for model.
.
Nothing quite new, in fact. In China, the software industry has been working that way for long: 80% is bootlegged versus 20% generating license fees, but the market is so huge that even a tiny monetized slice is sufficient to insure a sizable revenue stream for software makers (that goes also for entertainment products).
.
These are not the only example where the free model can be a powerful commercial engine. Last week, at the Monaco Media Forum, Avinash Kaushik, Google Analytics’ chief evangelist, mentioned the example of TurboTax, an American tax filing software and service company. For a limited period of time, TurboTax decided to give away its basic application. It has two effects:  of course, taxpayers rushed to download  the free version — a zero-cost massive promotion campaign since the production and delivery costs of the software are close to zero — but more surprisingly, at the same time, the sales of the Deluxe version ($59.95) rose significantly. That was the free model as a sales engine.
.
To what extent the examples mentioned above could inspire the media industry is a complicated question. A part of the answers lies in the publishers’ ability to conceive not only great news services but also clever applications and services that could draw an audience willing to pay for it, that will, in turn, subsidize the bulk of the readers/users enjoying free basic (and bait) content.   –FF
.

Related columns:

1. Trying a Simple Model TweetAdvertising still dominates the newspaper revenue model. Depending upon the particular country, it is not uncommon to see print dailies getting 70% to 80% of their revenue from advertising. In the early days of the digital era, when business plans were driven by “eyeballs”, everybody hoped to replicate the tried and true print advertising revenue [...]...
2. Paid-for-free papers: the mirage of the hybrid models TweetIn less than five years, major newspapers will be giving away more than 50% of their copies. We call this the hybrid model. It works like this: a paid-for newspaper (one posting a price on its first page) with a vast portion it circulation distributed in selected – that’s the key point — areas for [...]...
3. Paid news on Mobile. Why it could fly. TweetThis week, I downloaded the iPhone application of the British newspaper the Independent. It’s a new breed of app, taking advantage of the new features embedded in the third iteration of the iPhone OS. For a daily newsmedia, Push Notification is the most interesting new feature, combined, in this case, with an offline reader. On [...]...
4. The economics of moving from print to online:
   lose one hundred, get back eight TweetLet’s kill a myth. The dream of a compact newsroom, able to output a high-intensity general news website doesn’t fly. Numbers simply don’t add up. And here is why. . First, the cost structure of a daily. In a typical operation, the biggest costs are industrial ones: around 25%-35% for paper and printing; another 30%-40% [...]...
5. Revenue Model Breakthrough? TweetMicro-payments are an old idea, some say a bad fantasy. Chief, we’re rich: I found a way to get a millicent per page view… So far, not much has happened. Unless you look at a tidy, not tiny, little billion-dollar business called iTunes. Three years ago, in February 2006, 1 billion songs served, sold, cashed [...]...