RE: [projectvrm] A user-centric revenue model

["Crosbie Fitch" < >]

> From: Jim Bursch
> A transaction is a function of a relationship, and a payment is an 
> expression of a relationship.

I agree.

> I cannot imagine a micro relationship with any one or any thing.

I think the 'micro' was not generally recognised as diminutive of the
relationship, but of the monetary amount (that it would then be too cheap to
begrudge - a flawed notion as you observe).

But you have a good point regarding the unimaginable nature of a
micro-relationship.

I daresay, from a relationship perspective, 'micro' in the original coining
of micropayment arose from the contempt of the corporate publisher for their
customers - as so many ants - with whom any relationship apart from a bank
account syphon was infra dig, e.g. "We're going to make it so easy for you
to pay us what we'd like to charge you for consuming our product that you'll
thank us - you lovely bovines."

However, if one was to reframe the term 'micropayment' as a dominant act on
the part of the customer, of their volition rather than acquiesence to the
vendor's, then it wouldn't necessarily mean the amount was insignificant to
the person making the payment, or even that the relationship was, but could
indicate that the customer was one of a million strong collective
(audience).

I'm not necessariy wedded to the term 'micropayment', but I think its
original intent of  'microcharge' is what made it fail (together with the
decision cost). It wasn't the small amount, i.e. a millionth of the cost of
an intellectual work being a penny for a work valued at £10,000.

So, if we wish to restore the importance of a relationship, yet retain the
idea of a collective payment to a single producer, how about megapayment?
(converse of microcharge?)

Or perhaps, if an artist nearer the thin end of the long-tail has a thousand
fans, we should call them kilopayments? That also ties in with Kevin Kelly's
thousand true fans.

Or perhaps more generically, macropayments?

Cory Doctorow has introduced this quite nicely already:
http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2008/09/cory-doctorow-macropayments.html

The future of paying for intellectual work, as ushered by the Internet, is
the audience taking the initiative in paying the artist, and consequently
each individual payment being a fraction of the collective payment. The
corollary to this is that the public then gets their liberty restored given
they've paid for the work to be published (copyright is neutralised by the
neo-publisher given this anachronistic revenue mechanism is now redundant
and counter-productive).

Ok, micropayment qua microcharge is dead.

However, inescapably, the audience is paying. Shall we say "Long live
macropayments"?