This is barely a post and more an obvious observation of sorts. I find it interesting that we, the news media optimization industry, discuss opportunities in Micropayments, while debating the value of media’s participation in news aggregation. Reflecting on this, it becomes somewhat apparent that the two concepts are mostly mutually exclusive! Conflicting to the extent where I cannot strategically justify (recommend)  general effort applied to both at the same time.

Consider the following; Micropayments are generally centered around an immediate need for satisfaction, and presented in an all-or-nothing environment, where no other options are supplied.

Have a look at the typical news aggregation arrangement below:

The above screenshot presents me with information about the G-20 talks about devaluation, but more importantly, the news aggregator links to a primary article by Bloomberg, accompanying articles by Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the New York Times, Financial Times, AFP and an additional 2,544 similar news articles. This is not an all-or-nothing offering, it’s, well, just all!

IF I am a news aggregator user, AND I have an immediate need for G-20 devaluation talks commentary, I find it difficult to see why I would not just click any of the other 2550 links, instead of walking down the micropayment lane (The story is different IF I started on the bloomberg.com front page – of course).

In conclusion. I am not sure that news media articles have the same characteristics (alas all-or-nothing) as other products prone for micropayment  – and I definitely see a conflict between time spent on news aggregation optimization while trying to introduce micropayments.

Cheers :-)
/ Dennis (@dennismortensen)