Social Media Wiki

If You Charged for Your Content, Would Anyone Pay?



Nike+ Running

As you look through nearly any brand website, you’ll see all sort of content related to the brand. Of course, there’s information about the product including all of the brand messages and, of course, in the case of healthcare, a bunch of fair balance. Most every site in every industry goes beyond this and offers some information about their category whether it be information about LCD versus plasma TVs or, in healthcare, information about the diseases their products treat. That’s all standard.

A few go beyond this, they offer something of a service in the form of an ongoing newsletter to share new content with their customers every so often. It’s a part of many company’s relationship marketing efforts, and these vary dramatically in their value to customers. Some may offer a coupon or special offers only available to members of the program. Of course, the vast majority of these are free to the subscribers. Pharma is no exception, as each of the top selling drugs offer some type of program (whether they’re working as well as they could or not is another story).

And, of course, some companies go even further and offer applications and services at no charge. Some of these are incredibly valuable and others are pretty questionable in their utility. Now it seems like everyone has a free iPhone app for their brand. This includes companies like USA Today, Nationwide, even Chipotle. Healthcare has dabbled in this area as well and have started to offer some iPhone applications. It’s not just iPhone apps either. Other on-site tools offer utility as well from disease trackers to product selectors and even games.

So, everyone is giving more than just brand information on their websites. It makes sense, right? When it comes to healthcare, you need to include information about the disease your product treats, right? You have to include things like diet suggestions, exercise tips, or even relaxation suggestions. Or do you? In many cases, we include this type of information because we think we have to. Our competitors do, so in order for our site to be as “good” as theirs, we do it also.

But think about it for a minute. The non-brand information we provide on our brand sites in healthcare is fairly generic in nature and available from a variety of sources. That is, you can get this type of information from a bunch of different sources; sources that consumers see as more objective than brand sites. Places like WebMD provide countless disease-related articles and tips related to healthcare. Even for specific disease information, third party sites almost always go far deeper than what you’ll find on any brand site. It’s what they do.

Despite this fact, healthcare companies continue to spend a lot of money to create content that can already be found elsewhere. Often, they create applications that don’t offer much value or have limited utility. I’m not picking on healthcare companies. This is common in every industry. We don’t use what’s out there already, we want to create our own version. We don’t link to other resources or syndicate content onto our sites. We want to make our own. But how many exercise tips do we need for people with hypertension?

It’s an ultra-competitive marketplace out there and companies believe they need to “capture” as many people as possible. They want them to stay on their sites and not go elsewhere. So, what better way to do this than try to put everything a person might need on your website? Okay, but here’s the problem with this. If you’re going to make an attempt, people now expect everything they see to be of outstanding quality. You have to remember that they aren’t comparing you to your category competitor anymore, they’re comparing you to everything else they’ve seen online. If your content isn’t of high quality with a lot of in depth information, people will be disappointed. If your application doesn’t work right or is boring, they’re going to be unhappy. Disappointed or unhappy people are not the kind of customers you want.

If you’re going to create your own content, whether it be articles or an application, it had better be good. It’s what people expect. They aren’t happy simply because you made an effort. They don’t need to get it from you, there are plenty other sources. And, that’s where they’ll go if you let them down.

So, the question you have to ask is simple. Is my content seen as valuable to my customers? If it’s not, you need to ask why you’re doing it? Of course, figuring out if your content is useful or not can be tough. It requires complete objectivity and that’s not easy for anyone. I’m going to make it easy for you.

When it comes to the best content and applications, we often pay for them. We pay for them happily because we get so much value from them. So, here’s your question, if you decided to charge for your content or applications, would anyone pay for them? It doesn’t need to be a lot, say, a dollar for your application. Okay, how about fifty-cents? Two bits? Anything? If your answer is no, then your content could possibly be doing more harm than good. People might find your content and get frustrated by its lack of details, limited utility, or because your application didn’t work right.

Here’s the good news, you don’t have to set up a complex payment system on your site. You don’t actually have to charge people for your content or applications. Just use it as a test to see if what you have is good enough.

Much of the content that was once something you paid for is now moving to free. Chris Anderson famously proposed this in his Wired magazine article, Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business. But many of these free things, we would pay for if they suddenly required us to pay. A few examples: if Google suddenly decided to charge for Gmail, would you pay for it? I would. If Nike decided to charge for Nike+, would you pay for that? I would and I bet that I most people that use it would do the same.

“But,” you say, “we’re not Nike. We’re not Google. We’re talking healthcare. I don’t have to worry about these types of companies. I’m worried about my competitors.” Well, they are your competitors. Everything online is you competitor. Everything is competing for your customers’ time, so they’re you competitors. Here’s the thing to remember, people ARE paying for your content. They pay for it with their time, which is both very valuable and finite. When they waste their time, they waste their money.

Is you content wasting people’s money? If so, what are you going to do to improve it today?

Subscribe to the Dose of Digital RSS Feed


Join
Dose of Digital on Facebook for exclusive content and sneak previews.



Ready to hire the folks behind Dose of Digital? Contact us.

Possibly related posts (auto-generated):

  1. 2010 Resolution #3: Learn 5 Things Your Customers Do Online
  2. I’ll Build You an iPhone Medication Tracker App for $10
  3. One More Reason Pharma Needs Product Reviews


Print This Post Print This Post

  • Hi Jon,
    Great discussion-starter today. It was very reminiscent of the question I posed back in June to our clients, http://news.intouchsol.com/Volume1Issue6/OurIns..., "Is Your Content Worth Sharing?" I really think there is more to this concept than simply producing valuable content. Don't get me wrong, valuable content is a great starting point. But marketers today need to be taking the next step. Once they've produced valuable content, they need to ask:

    1. Am I providing means for my content to be actively shared?
    2. Will my content be distributed via trusted sources/affiliates?
    3. Will my content make it through the consumer's filter?
    4. Will my content make it through my consumer's friends' filters?
    5. Am I distributing my content via the preferred channels of my consumers?
    6. Will my content elicit a response?
    7. How will I respond and engage the consumers that found enough value in my content to respond?
    8. And more...

    These questions directly impact a marketing team's business objectives and strategy, contact strategy and social media engagement plan. And these questions could end up defining whether or not your overall marketing message has any value. Then, there is always the question of whether or not you want your brand to become a consumer destination for information or you want to be the best distributor of valuable content. It's a much bigger question that valuable content, but this is a great place to start.
  • Jim, These are great questions. I love this framework. Thanks for taking the time to share. The questions you ask are similar to the thinking behind a concept our agency created called "The Selfish Consumer." Check out the deck on my SlideShare page http://slideshare.net/jonmrich
  • Jon - I wasn't implying that you were saying that pharma cos should start charging for their content; what I was trying to say was that perhaps this is the wrong question to be asking when the content is created. As you so aptly state, much of web content is becoming free, hence people are not visiting sites necessarily with the question "would I pay for this" or "is it valuable enough to pay for this," but "is this site worth my time?" Research shows time and again that if you don't grab someone immediately on the home page, you've lost them. So you're correct; pages and pages of "me too" content is pretty worthless. But I think that if pharma is going to get their heads of their butts, they need to think outside the "2000 and late box" which I respectfully, submit is thinking "what would I pay for this content?" Perhaps it is a matter of putting community first and reframing the site to focus on the up and coming rather than the "its been done" if that makes sense.

    Thanks for a provocative post.
    .-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..Keep it greasy…with Zestra® =-.
  • Liz, So if "would I pay for it?" isn't the right question, then what is? "Is the site worth my time?" maybe. I mentioned that time is money (and Dan said it even better in his comment), so essentially, they are paying for it with their time. You said: "Perhaps it is a matter of putting community first and reframing the site to focus on the up and coming rather than the “its been done” if that makes sense." So, how do you know when you have the "up and coming" and even more importantly, that your customers are going to care about the "up and coming"?
  • @ Liz Scherer
    According to a maths equation, the average minute is worth just over 10 pence (15 cents) to men and eight pence (12 cents) to women.

    The formula is: V=(W((100-t)/100))/C, where V is the value of an hour, W is a person's hourly wage, t is the tax rate and C is the local cost of living.

    It shows that there is no such thing as a free lunch or even a free dinner, while brushing your teeth for three minutes uses up 30 pence (45 cents) in "lost" time, and washing a car by hand has a hidden cost of £3 ($4.50).

    Thus, reading the content on a web site can be attributable to paying for it - so it should be a good investment, i.e valuable content. (which, I think is the point of this blog post) I also think the value goes up proportionatly dependent on the severity of your condition.
  • How is this applicable to Pharma? People already have difficulties paying for the costs of drugs; so what is going to compel them to pay for information on a pharma website. I thinkthat you've oversimplified this to the point that it's a lot of drivel (sorry Jon). Web content is mostly free and attaching a dollar amount to it doesn't make it more "valuable." Moreover, value is very subjective. I'd go back to the drawing board on this one.
    .-= Liz Scherer´s last blog ..Keep it greasy…with Zestra® =-.
  • Liz, Thanks for the comment, but, of course, I couldn't disagree more. First, I'm not saying that pharma companies should actually charge for their content. I understand your point that people already have trouble paying for their drugs in some cases (but that's another argument for another day). So, I don't think that pharma companies should try to use their content as an additional revenue source for a couple of reasons. Number one, it's not good enough to charge anyone for it. No one would pay for what they're offering. Second, there's not a reason to charge for it since there is, as you noted, a lot of quality free information out there. My point with the post is that you should create content and applications that are so good that people would actually pay for them if you asked them. My exact words: "Here’s the good news, you don’t have to set up a complex payment system on your site. You don’t actually have to charge people for your content or applications. Just use it as a test to see if what you have is good enough."

    I think you missed the point. At no point in the post did I say that pharma companies should charge for their content to make it seem more valuable (as you suggest with 'Web content is mostly free and attaching a dollar amount to it doesn’t make it more “valuable.”'). So, that's not really a valid argument here, since I didn't suggest this.

    Here's my question to you: if a pharma company created something like Nike+ (let's assume Nike didn't do it first), could they charge for it? I think they could because it's a quality product. Should they charge for it? Probably not. It's a value-added service to differentiate them from the competition. If they created a crappy version of Nike+, could they charge for it? Absolutely not. It wouldn't be worth it regardless whether a pharma company or Nike made it. Now, consider this, Weight Watchers has hundreds of thousands of people paying $20 a month to use their web tools to manage their diet. Is their program any better than what SparkPeople entirely for free? I don't think it's $360 a year better. But, it would be perfectly reasonable for SparkPeople to charge for the content on their site. Here's why: even though it's free, SparkPeople was created to a standard such that it could be a pay service. I don't know if this is what the creators were thinking when they made it, but they could have. They may have thought, "what do we have to do to make this good enough that people would pay for it?"

    If pharma had this same thing in mind when they created something, the quality of what they put out would be astronomically higher. Instead, much of it is created to simply meet the competition's level and that's not good enough. If you create something with the thought that you have to make it good enough so that people will give you their hard-earned money for it when you're done, you'll create things to a much, much higher standard. This was the challenge in my post (and I ask that you re-read it with this in mind). Pharma should create content and applications with the thought that it has to be good enough so that people would pay for it. Right now, there isn't much out there like that. Again, I'm not saying they should charge for it, but make it good enough that you could. J&J's iPhone app, CareConnector, is free, but it's good enough that they could have easily charged 99 cents (the iTunes minimum) for it. And they would have sold a lot of them. Of course, they give it away to help build the J&J brand, but it was created to a different standard and that's what makes it good.
  • Jonathan, I always tell my friends running agencies that their sales calls and pitches should be something the prospect would be willing to pay for. If you aren't doing something that provides that much value, you are wasting their (and probably your) time. Same is true online of course. Nice piece.
    .-= Kevin at e-Patient Connections´s last blog ..6 Pecha Kucha winners announced! =-.
  • Jon,
    Good post following our discussion yesterday!
    I think one way pharma can add more value to their information is to enable the consumer/patient to be able to customize it and personalize it for their own needs and interests...Ellen
    .-= ellen hoenig´s last blog ..Strong Brand Core--More Core Than Ever? =-.
  • I'm with you, Ellen. I've written about this before. http://su.pr/Aekjfj Everyone should be doing this, not just pharma of course. Those that do it well now are way ahead of everyone else.
  • Part of the problem is that writing and designing for the web is a completely different discipline and a lot of Pharmaco brand teams still don't realise this. I have been in many a meeting where they think that the content for a web asset should simply be lifted and ported from leave-pieces, direct mail shots, conference presentations, etc that in general have been written by the internal PR team with the assist of a 'traditional' agency. Also, the notion that the web asset should follow the brand template and design of a print ad / detail aid rather than complement it, is still adhered to by some - and the only logic that I can see for this is that the eMarketing part of the promotion mix is still rated lower by some in the marketing heirarchy than it should be - ie. 'the 'bete noire'
    I agree Jonathan that people should be rewarded for that most precious of commodities - time - and with some of the patients who are being detectives on the web with the more serious conditions, time is far more precious than it is to you and I who have our health in better shape. The least a Pharmaco provided web asset can do is provide a decent user-experience in the base parameters. We talk about this a little toward the end of our most recent blog post.
    http://tinyurl.com/l5tfj6
blog comments powered by Disqus