Without a doubt making the most news from this report is the finding that people would not pay to use Twitter.
The annual study of the impact of the Internet on Americans by the Center for the Digital Future found that 49 percent of Internet users said they have used free micro-blogs such as Twitter. But when asked if they would be willing to pay for Twitter, zero percent said yes. "Such an extreme finding that produced a zero response underscores the difficulty of getting Internet users to pay for anything that they already receive for free," said Jeffrey I. Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism.
What's amazing to us is that it's zero percent. You would think some (just a few) would find enough value in Twitter to pay for it. The summary does not mention how much money people said no to. Would they not spend $50/year but spend $15/year? That's an important number to know and we're going to try and find out. We also wonder if the same question was asked about Google, Bing, Facebook, etc. Again, we're going to try and find out.
While it's true that once you give it away it's difficult to get people to pay for it would extra features get people to pay? What could get people to pay? The cable/satellite tv and bottled water industries did it. Starbucks has also done it.
What does this say about the value the public places on social media in general?
How important is it?
Is it WORTH something but only if others pay for it OR is it something that's fun to do (sharing photos with friends or commenting on the latest book you read) but you could live with it or without it and if you wanted to share with friends, family, colleagues and others you could/can do it yourself by email or something like a newsgroup. Much less spam too! It's easy to forget that social media has been around A LOT longer than Facebook, Twitter, and other services. I'm sure you've heard of email and bulletin boards. The lingua franca for the masses remains email. It's likely the one Internet skill every user learns how to do.
In the very late 1970's and early 1980's many people said they would NEVER spend money for television. Now, cable and satellite tv are multibillion dollar businesses that got the public to "buy in" on the idea. Will the same thing happen with some/all social media? If it is just something that's fun to do and there comes a time someone, somewhere will have to pay for it, could/would/should a library buy access for their patrons like they do now with databases, videos, and e-books?
Finally, if Twitter and similar service are solely paid for with advertising where is the line between a "doable" number of ads and much to much advertising that would have to have people stop using the service. What about if a service would be provided for free but tweets about that sponors products would appear every 2-3 minutes.
+ The current study found that half of Internet users never click on Web advertising, and 70 percent said that Internet advertising is "annoying. "
+ 55 percent of users said they would rather see Web advertising than pay for content.
+ The responses about Twitter are reinforced by other findings in the Digital Future Study that explore Internet users' opinions about online advertising. The current study found that half of Internet users never click on Web advertising, and 70 percent said that Internet advertising is "annoying. " Yet 55 percent of users said they would rather see Web advertising than pay for content.
Even More Numbers
+ Low adoption of new media -- Although new media is used by large percentages of Internet users age 24 and under, overall large percentages of Internet users never go online to do instant messaging (50 percent), work on a blog (79 percent), participate in chat rooms (80 percent), or make or receive phone calls (85 percent).
More After a Click
The numbers not only illustrate a digital divide but it shows something even more CRUCIAL for info pros to remember. Those of us who spend a lot of time online doing various things online can easily FORGET (ResourceShelf included) that many others do not spend nearly the amount of time online that we do. What does this mean for a libraries today and tomorrow especially during a time when budgets are declining.
For those who DO go online what percentage use more than the most basic tools. For example will the residents of city X use the tools that new social online catalogs offer. Personally, we've been using them quite a bit lately (some truly amazing resources) but is paying for all of the extra features worth it if only a few use them? Just asking. So, if only a few do use them and at a very basic level how do we get more people to try them, become regulars and be able to take advantage of all that is available? The library world has to create a need and explain why these features are important and valuable. How do we let people who haven't used a library/library resource in 5, 10, or even 15 years get them to learn about and then use what we have to provide?
+ Americans on the Internet -- For the first time, the Internet is used by more than 80 percent of Americans -- now 82 percent.
+ Weekly hours online -- The average time online has now reached 19 hours per week. Although more than two-thirds of Americans have gone online for a decade, the largest year-to-year increases in weekly online use have been reported in the two most recent Digital Future studies.
+ Gaps in Internet use in age groups -- Not surprisingly, Internet use continues to increase as age decreases, with 100 percent of those under age 24 going online. However, a surprisingly high percentage of Americans between 36 and 55 are not Internet users: among respondents age 46 to 55, 19 percent are non-users; among those 36 to 45, 15 percent are non-users.
+ Does technology make the world a better place -- The percentage of users age 16 and older who said that communication technology makes the world a better place has declined to 56 percent of users from its peak of 66 percent in 2002.
+ The study found that as sources of information – their primary function – newspapers rank below the Internet or television. Only 56 percent of Internet users ranked newspapers as important or very important sources of information for them – a decrease from 60 percent in 2008 and below the Internet (78 percent), and television (68 percent).
+ Even lower are the percentages of users who consider newspapers important as sources of entertainment for them, now considered important by 29 percent of Internet users, and down from 32 percent in 2008 – also last among principal media.
The FreePint Family is a family of resources to help information workers be more effective, raise the value of information in their organisations and contribute to success.
'FreePint... provides most of my professional development because it won't come through work and [other resources] just don't cut it.'
FUMSI Forum: Do you have a research question? Post it to the FUMSI Forum, where professionals share Q&A and useful tips on how to Find, Use, Manage and Share Information. It's free.
FreePint Shop:
VIP LiveWire:
