The Board Of Innovation » micro-payment

Flattr.com – a revenue model for online creators

Nick — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:52:24 +0000

Already from the visual appearance of this model you’ll notice that Flattr tries to work in different way. Lots of us are enjoying all the free content brought to us by all the individual online publishers. Sometimes you would feel the urge to support these people. To do so you could make use of donate buttons, but still this process takes some effort. That’s where Flattr comes in with their structured approach to micro-donations. As a Flattr client you set your own monthly subscription fee. Then, while browsing/consuming online content, you are able to select your favorite publications. You can ‘flattr’ any type of content. At the end of the month your subscription fee will be distributed over all the people that you tagged (flattred) during that period. Initially Flattr.com will take a 10% commission but they are working hard to bring this number down.

Just like Hollr and Oronjo, this service is looking for a way to help people create their own micro-revenue model. If executed well this system could even replace the outdated business model of ancient royalty and copyright organizations. Without the need for complex distribution algorithms consumers can now pay creative creators directly for the work they consume online. You, and not a centralized monitoring organization, decides where your money goes to. I can’t wait for that day to come.

Special note to our Dutch and Belgian friends:
We are running an innovation battle at BelgieVsNederland.be and NederlandVsBelgie.nl. Get your inspiring reward with just 6 questions to answer.

Thanks! @nickdemey & @philderidder

Kickstarter.com – community funding of extraordinary projects

Nick — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:52:24 +0000

You might be one of those people that walks around with a marvelous idea but never found an incentive (or pile of money) to start your project. But what if you could find a small crowd of people that could back your idea. A crowd that doesn’t only give you the needed support but that will actually co-found your dream. That’s exactly what Kickstarter has to offer. First, submit your idea and set a target goal. (e.g. 10.000 dollar). Next you need to convince people to donate a part of your funding. To do this you make a few promises. For instance: You wish to roll out a scarcely-dressed-ladies-sketch-club and you need 3000 dollar. Those who donate 10 dollar will receive a handwritten postcard. But those that donate 1000 dollar will get life-time access to all sketch events. And so on. Make the experience as personal and exclusive as possible. But be careful. If you don’t offer enough value for money to those who pledge, you might not reach your goal within the 1-90 day time limit. Once reached, Kickstarter will pay out the funding and will take 5% commission. Secondly they will ~~earn on the cash that’s been in their possession for a few months~~*. If the target isn’t reached, the project will be canceled ~~and people will get their money back~~*. Interesting revenue model isn’t it?
Kickstarter democratizes the funding business. Instead of strolling between friends, family and fools you can now reach out to the masses. Secondly the business model of Kickstarter truly embraces the business building blocks ‘experience’ and ‘exposure’. Paying backers with personalized products and services is a remarkable strategy. A third important aspect is the fact that Kickstarter helps their members to fully reach the different segments within a crowd of funders. Many people will pledge a few dollars while only few want to donate a large sum. This optimization of funding is what makes Kickstarter truly unique. Keep an eye on this start-up because they could really boom in 2010.

* update Feb 10: Andy Baio (CTO Kickstarter) points out in the comments that Amazon takes care of the payments. Thereby nobody is charged upfront so Kickstarter won’t earn on the few month of cash as mentioned above. It’s worth noting that some other companies that focus on selling voucher do strongly rely on these upfront payments. The Belgian company Bongo is such an example.

DeepDyve, renting scientific articles

Nick — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:49:51 +0000

Many online content providers are struggling with their online business model. Nothing new of course. The same goes up for the scientific publishers. In contrast with the news industry where an off-line publication (newspaper) has a rather low price tag, scientific publications are valued at a much higher price. Therefore many of these publications are today locked behind webshops and not accessible to the public. Often the abstract doesn’t give enough information to convince people to buy the full article. DeepDyve tries to offer a solution for that. The scientific search engine now offers the possibility to rent full articles for 24 hours for only $ 0.99. The articles will be accessible online in a not distributable and printable format, at least that is what they are claiming. A part of the revenue will be shared to the scientific publishers.

The business model itself is not that unique. This is again a layered freemium model. Part of the content is accessible for free (abstract/summary) and people can pay to have access to more information. When articles are very long and on top of that complex to read, the 24 hour time frame will probably be not enough for most users. Renting more days or buying the article will often be a better choice. The difference with other micro-payment services is that the small $0.99 teasers are not the only revenue stream for the company. This is only a step-up to convince people to buy full articles. In contrast with news, scientific articles remain valuable over time what makes it more interesting to buy the articles instead of ‘renting’ them.

Emoji Dick, Risk-free innovation by means of crowdsourcing?

Nick — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:16:31 +0000

The Emoji Dick project is again a good example of how communities can work together to achieve big tasks. In order to translate a copy of Moby Dick, founder Fred Benenson is looking for a crowd to assist him. He may need all the help since he will be translating English into Emoji, a Japanese emoticon language. His working crowd consists out of so called Amazon Mechanical Turks who deliver micro-services in exchange for micro-payments. Some will focus on making multiple translated suggestions of sentences while others will choose the best versions out of them. Other people (the backers) give donations to support the project. In return they will receive one of the exclusive versions of the book, depending on the amount of money they donated. Hopefully this generates enough money to start the project so ambitious Fred can enjoy a small profit as well.

Technology makes it possible that more people than ever are offering basic services that can be delivered worldwide. So instead of contacting a professional company, one may prefer to tap into a crowd of such micro-workers. To lower the risk the Emoji Dick project will only start when enough capital has been raised. Also Quirky, another social start-up we discussed earlier, makes use of these upfront payments. An interesting strategy! More and more start-ups are using such a business model, as a result (software) services that give support to such concepts will become more important in the future. So can we conclude by saying that A bright idea + the right Technology = a Risk-free innovation. Or are these business models to good to be true? What important risks do remain?

Irehab.com: Let doctors pay to give you health care

Nick — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:06:30 +0000

The new start-up Irehab.com tries to take a different approach to health care. Patients can get free advice on how to treat specific complaints. By answering a few questions and looking at several 3D animations, these users should be able to diagnose themselves. To treat for instance ‘back pain’ they can follow step-by-step instruction videos made by physical therapists but personally selected by external doctors to fit the needs of that specific patient. The first 10 consults are free of charge, both for the patient and the doctor. On the platform itself, they will have a private area where they can keep track of the results. After the first 10 consults the doctors will have to pay $0.99 for each patient that they want to follow up in the future. For further advice the patient will have to pay a fixed nominal fee per month directly to the clinic or doctor. On average this fee will be around $9.99. The only money that Irehab.com” receives will be the $0.99 per month, so they will need a large database to make this Freemium concept profitable. Within a few years it will be common practice that people will diagnose and monitor themselves without the hassle of expensive expert consults. Many companies are looking for ways to monetize this evolution. Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault are only a few of the large group IT services that are around these days. But also beyond the normal web experience we see these experimental concepts. Recently Apple presented the Lifescan’s New Diabetes iPhone App that communicates with a seperate glucose monitoring device. The latter works similar as the VirtuaGym concept we presented earlier. There people could monitor their offline exercise habits to benchmark these with other peers online. This D.I.Y. health care market is nearly unexplored so you may expect a boom of new concepts and ideas in the coming year. Many of them will fail but some of them will change the way we look at health care forever.

Nexicon, turning fear into cash

Nick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:37:10 +0000

The business concept of Nexicon is quite exceptional. Their monitoring service tracks down IP’s of illegal content distributors on bittorent and other peer-to-peer networks. I suppose that this service towards copyright owners like movie studies and record labels can be bought with a some form of subscription. Once identified Nexicon’s system will automatically send out a settlement agreement to the ISP who has to forward it to his own client. In such a letter Nexicon threats with legal action if this distributor doesn’t choose to settle within 10 days by paying 10 dollar per illegally shared item. Nexicon will take a commission on each transaction. Although 10 dollar is far less then normally asked in settlement agreements it can generate an reasonable profit for Nexicon if they are able to track down these p2p-users in large amounts.

‘Experiences’ as we use it in our business model framework are characterized by the emotional impact on a user. Contrary to other ‘experience’ sellers Nexicons tries to offer such a negative experience (fear) that will convince a user to pay a small amount of money. An example of the opposite would be a pay-what-you-want restaurant that tries to offer such a pleasant experience in order to receive a reasonable payment from each client. In the end this shows that you as company should take control over the experience of your customer, even when this is a negative one.

Will EA embrace the Free Pirate game Business model – iPhone like?

Nick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:29:11 +0000

For years game publishers could rely on the sales of relative expansive game discs to gain their profits. But then together with internet the peer-to-peer networks came up which made it easier for consumers to find cheap alternative solutions to play their most favorite games. After years of fighting against this change in consumers behavior EA now tries to find a new business concept where they could actually make use of this new network possibilities. Buying a disc (or downloading the game) is only a one-time transaction. Once games are connected to the EA server network then extra recurrent micro-transactions are possible. Extra levels, game add-ons or even third party sales could take place inside the game in order to expand the game experience. Possibly this second transaction could become so large that in the end the first transaction would become insignificant. In that case pirated versions of game are just a part of a demo program of a game publisher.

Once you understand that revenue could come from these kind of transactions then you know why Apple for instance doesn’t force old iPhone user to buy new iPhones in order to make use their new software updates. Apple will earn the biggest amount of money with the sales inside the different apps. So when more users have access to the iTunes iPhone store, the more revenue can come in. Then you also know why Apple doesn’t focus on a broad range of iPhones. Nokia on the other hand does and by doing this they still are trying to make their money on the margins of actual cell phone sales like EA did with the actual sales of game discs.

Super Chirp Launches Freemium Twitter Model

Philippe — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:25:42 +0000

Get paid to tweet! Yesterday Super Chirp was launched as a tool for twitter users to get paid for their content stream. The application allows twitter users to send direct messages to people who pay to subscribe. Adding new vocabulary, a ‘chirp’ is a direct message sent via twitter to a paying subscriber. Any twitter user can sign up for Super Chirp with his or her existing twitter account (unlike twitpub), and set a monthly price between $0.99 and $9.99. Subscribers pay the small monthly fee for a stream of information. Super Chirp keeps a cut of 30%, leaving 70% for the publisher.

We have touched upon twitter’s monetization before with 77 Ways Twitter Could Make Money. Super Chirp illustrates how 3th party apps are monetizing twitter’s free service by offering paid premiums. Why does twitter refuse to enter the arena? From a user perspective, Super Chirp is another new tool for ‘prosumers’ and organizations to earn money. Think of celebrities (f.e. Britney Spears), stock tips, “the funniest guy on twitter”, horoscopes, charity, authority bloggers, early info… Do you have something unique to sell in small messages?

Taatu and Virtua Gym on Pitcharena.com

Nick — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:43:37 +0000

Following our previous post on wantz.it and tweetag, two other social applications that presented during Pitch Arena were Taatu and Virtua Gym. For these two ventures we also briefly described their business model. We didn’t go in depth, but mapping out the four social applications gaves us the possibility to quickly compare them with each other. Taatu is already active for several years and relies on a more complex business model than Virtua Gym.

Taatu

Taatu relies on two big revenue loops in their business system. First of all they offer a 3D chat experience to their user base, an active crowd of youngsters. The attention of this group is sold to advertisers who can create branded content and events inside the 3D world of Taatu. Another stream of revenue comes from many small micro-payments inside their virtual world. Users can buy virtual items that will extend their community experience. Also, the users of taatu can create goods that others can buy, which leads to a virtual economy. Different to other virtual economies, the virtual currency can’t be exchanged to dollars. Money can therefore only be transferred from the users to Taatu company.

Virtua Gym

During their 8 minute pitch shown below, the two brothers behind Virtua Gym describe the different business models that they are using. Since they are still in a very early stage, it difficult to determine which part of their business concept will become their most important revenue stream. Once they have built up their service towards gym users, they will have an interesting user base to sell to niche advertisers.

This leads to a typical free advertising based business model where the basic service is offered for free in exchange for advertising. Many online services try to rely on this business concept but only a few of them manage to become sustainable. A large user base, even in a niche topic is vital to attract large advertisers. Therefor Virtua Gym is working to add an experience on top of their service where users can have an off-line but real-time sport competition against other people.

Disrupted businesses by iPhone 3.0 features like in-app commerce

Nick — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:54:52 +0000

Apple is the only company that could get an applaus for the implementation of trivial product features like copy/paste. During the widely discussed iPhone 3.0 launch this evening they had of course more and better product features to announce: Peer-to-peer connectivity, improved accessory support, an in-app store,…

But Apple didn’t launch just product features, they rolled out new revenue concepts. Cut and paste took a while to implement simply because there is no money in it. But there is a lot of money in purchasing add-ons inside games and paid content subscriptions. Selling virtual weapons and levels is only one thing. This was just to illustrate the potential.

What Apple really did was launching a platform to sell any kind of good in any kind of application available to any user anywhere. This will transform iTunes into a wholesaler instead of the digital (music) store as we know it today. And once other parties develop the products and services on which Apple will take big margins thanks to the in-app purchases, they will be in the in-game selling model we’ve just illustrated.

I then I didn’t even mention the potential of the micro-payment integration offered by the new transactions app. But it must be clear that Apple has a clear view on making money.