Study: Most Aussie internet users won't buy digital copies

 

Won't pay for news online, but keen on filter?

Few Australian internet users are willing to buy music or film online instead of buying the hard copy version and even fewer would pay anything for online newspaper content, the latest World Internet Project survey [PDF] has found.

The Australian portion of the survey was conducted by the ARC centre for excellence for creative industries and innovation at Swinburne University of Technology.

It took into account the opinions of 1,000 Australian internet users.

One of the key findings is the prices that users are willing to pay for online content.

Some 71.4 percent of respondents wouldn't even consider paying to read an online newspaper.

And only 7.2 percent indicated they'd be willing to pay $1.50 - although it was unclear whether the survey had asked the frequency in which users would be willing to pay.

It came as The Australian announced an iPad news app costing $4.99 a month.

Buying movies and music

Film and music download costs were also on the survey's radar.

The number of people who bought music online doubled between 2007 and 2009, according to the report. But given the choice, 80 percent of internet users would still prefer to buy music in hard copy form from an actual retail store.

There was little change in the number of users who said that being able to download music had decreased the amount they bought - hovering at 30 percent of internet users.

The most popular source of digital music was "copying one's own CDs", followed by copying a friend's discs.

"Just under a third of users report downloading for free (32.6 percent) and 28.2 percent use a file sharing site," the report said.

"[But] use of online music stores to get digital music [also] grew [over the period] from 16.8 percent of users in 2007 to 31.8 percent in 2009."

Films were much the same story. "Those who download movies on the whole do not think it affects their consumption of movies from 'traditional' sources," the report found.

About half of respondents indicated they would "not consider downloading music or movies instead of buying a hard copy at any price."

Only 5.9 percent said they would go for the download version over a hard copy only if it was free.

If they were willing to go digital over hard copy, the average price users were willing to pay was $17 - a lot less than the hard copy product.

Filtering the Web

The Federal Government could take something from the results, which indicated 40 percent of users "would like more regulation" of internet content.

About the same number, however, believed the current amount of internet regulation in Australia was "about right".

There was strong support for restricting children's access to internet content - over 82 percent of respondents were in favour - but they believed parents were mostly responsible, followed by schools, ISPs and then the Government.

The respondents most likely to say there's too much immoral material on the internet were either elderly or classified as "non-users" of the internet.


Study: Most Aussie internet users won't buy digital copies
"Dubious value of the study aside, who would pay for the current quality of newspapers online anyway? Starved of journalists and journalism, 'newspapers' merely republish government and corporate ..."
By ITrant
 
 
 
Comments: 18
Sams
May 18, 2010 6:32 PM
"The Federal Government could take something from the results, which indicated 40 percent of users "would like more regulation" of internet content."

I suspect the term "regulate" is being used in two different ways. The filter tries to hide certain content - not sure if you can call that "regulation". One can assume that the survey respondents mean they don't want certain content to be on the Internet at all, which is different.
peterniss
May 19, 2010 2:20 AM
Is this possibly because they dont want their music with all the Digital Rights Management rubbish? I know I dont and refuse to purchase anything with it. Who could blame anyone. I'd be happy to pay for individual tracks (not entire cds because most have a majority of rubbish tracks), with no DRM in a format like FLAC wich is lossless. Or even a much more intelligent and simpler license design of just paying a once off fee per track for a lifetime license to download it in whatever format. Its my oppinion that the record companies arent even trying and dont seem interested in playing fair. All we've seen is just a bunch of lawsuits and a very bad DRM distribution model. I have no pitty for them what so ever.
btone
May 19, 2010 6:13 AM
So the survey was of 1000 internet 'users'. But "the respondents most likely to say there's too much immoral material on the internet were either elderly or classified as "non-users" of the internet".

The answers regarding the filter were the typical claptrap such surveys produce with mothercare framed generic questions.

A recent valid survey clearly showed that when informed of the way Conroy wants to censor the net even the great unwashed became increasingly opposed to the farce commensurate with information and awareness.

Surveys with questions like "Do you think the internet should be regulated to prevent children accessing harmful content" will always get a knee jerk response from the uneducated parent. The resulting statistic is as valid as the print on toilet paper.

Still, the low 40% figure for even such a loaded survey would be as encouraging to Conroy as the new branch stacking allegations and Rudds tattered ratings. All three are pathetic.
legless
May 19, 2010 8:51 AM
Weighted questions and polls are always going to get weighted responses and a group of 1000 users is supposed to a representative sample. Very unlikely! The people who really want internet filtering probably have the free filter offered by Rudd's government. So even using it's own flawed results, the proposed filtering is NOT wanted by 50% of users. To my obviously addled brain, that is the majority.

Conroy's plan is flawed in every way to start with and it needs to be an opt-out or opt-in process not a compulsory one.

As for downloads, some studies have shown that accessibility of downloadable content (illegally or otherwise) can actually increase CD and DVD sales. Those who don't buy after downloading first were unlikely to ever buy it anyway so it's not as if a sale has been lost.

I am not going to buy a DVD of a movie or TV show unless I like it. With ,CDs at least one can usually listen to them in the shop first but not DVDs or software. Not liking a movie is not a valid reason for a shop to allow one to return the DVD. Sometimes one is not able to watch movies at the cinema first.
legless
May 19, 2010 8:53 AM
that should have read 6o% not 50% (typo)
Digger11
May 19, 2010 8:55 AM
100% of iiNet users will not be paying - Malone,ex-Telstra junior lawyer Dalby, and their sidekicks have guaranteed this.
Res
May 19, 2010 9:12 AM
I'd like to see a more realistic poll, taken with respondents in the (adult) age groups for most internet activity, 18-45. Everyone I know, from 19 to 56, not a one supports a filter.

I agree about paying for individual tracks rather than full CD's, and being a Linux user, I don't buy any with DRM, BP music and itunes are where I buy from (no DRM now days), I have not walked into a music store in about 6-7 years.
Thysce
May 19, 2010 10:08 AM
Any polls conducted with only a couple of thousand people or so to represent a demographic of a whole country shouldn't be trusted.

Also, if Digger11 says anything, it's gotta be true!
anonymous
May 19, 2010 12:31 PM

There are samples, and there are samples. For example, if the survey was conducted by landline, it would have excluded all the people, mainly younger ones, who use only mobile/wireless or who were out at the time.

But the killer has to be that in a survey of "1,000 internet users", the respondents who were more in favour of Net censorship were the older ones who did not use the Net. That's a very suss "survey".
Rhino
May 19, 2010 12:52 PM
I polled 1,000 Internet users, and 97.6% of respondents know that Digger11 is a bitter fanboy troll and should go back under his bridge, 2.4% believe he should get over whatever it is he holds against iiNet.

"The Federal Government could take something from the results, which indicated 40 percent of users "would like more regulation" of internet content."

and...

"There was strong support for restricting children's access to internet content.....but they believed parents were mostly responsible"

See...even the polls show that parents need to take more responsibility, not the Government. Shame our leaders are too gutless to follow that.
ADSLNerd
May 19, 2010 12:59 PM
1000 people is rediculousu for a start, and notice no age groups were defined, etc. I also bet these people were not very tech savvy and believed everything was able to be trusted. I despise DRM music, hence I wont buy DRM laced songs. Remember the Sony Rootkit years ago - well it truly stood by its name. As for web filtering - for god's sake control your children, not rely on the Commonwealth Government, and if you cannot control your children on the web you are not a responsible parent. I dont support web filtering and know various ways / methods to bypass it.

As for Copyright well its a grey area as Copyright does not exist in Queensland since the Brigalow Corporations Act was passed, which makes Queensland independent to the Commonwealth - therefore the Commonwealth Copyright Act does not apply in Queensland. The reason why movie downloads are so high is because the cost to purchase is too expensive. If you want people to buy a brand new released dvd charge no more than $10 to $15 and more will be sold.
Ace
May 19, 2010 1:00 PM
One has to remember that Australia has an aging population and that the grey vote is starting to become quite significant. So, whether they use the internet or not, their opinion of the internets 'evilness' counts.

Given that the media rarely publish internet/web related stories that are not to do with child-porn, other porn, facebook predators and various other evils, why would a non-internet user believe it could possibly be any good for anyone?
Mordd
May 19, 2010 3:59 PM
I would like to share a story with you all:

About a year to two ago, I came across the magic of Jeff Dunham, an American Ventriloquist comedian. I was so enamoured with his comedy that I first of all torrented, then went out and bought both his DVD's from my local ABC store.

This is not the only time that having discovered something good through "illegal" filesharing methods that I would never have discovered otherwise and thus ended up legally purchasing the artists material as a result.

If I could purchase online digital versions of works like this, instead of physical copies, especially at a reduced price taking into account reduced distribution costs (lack of packaging, physical product, etc..) I would more often buy the legitimate content for something I have torrented.

I find it a pain in the ass to have to walk the 15 minutes into town every day where I live just to buy a newspaper, however the online free version is not that great either. Give me the option to buy the SMH online as a full digital version (at a slightly reduced price again) and I would subscribe right now, as long as I didn't have to go buy an iPad just to be able to consume the material that is.

Make digital versions of content available and people will be more likely to buy them, not less likely. This article is misleading and false imho. 1000 users surveyed =/= a representative survery sample by any means. This article is like the saying "78% of all statistics are made up".
btone
May 19, 2010 4:05 PM
"One has to remember that Australia has an aging population and that the grey vote is starting to become quite significant. So, whether they use the internet or not, their opinion of the internets 'evilness' counts".

Hmmm. Why believe an age generalisation based on a dodgy poll and its own unverified analysis/assumptions.

I frankly think an 'upwardly mobile' fundamentalist young couple being duped out of some of their mortgage by 'they who sing songs on hills' would be far more supportive of net restrictions than ageing hippies like myself.

...and then of course there are the undefinable, the indescribable and the unimaginable factors that defy any logic present in many deliberations:

'they who diggeth amongst the muck ten times plus one'
Ace
May 20, 2010 12:16 PM
So @btone, you think that older people (say, 55+) use the internet about as much as as younger people? Admittedly I have not done a survey to establish this as fact, but I would have thought it was simply bleeding obvious.

I would also hazardous a guess that these people are far more likely to be contactable via land-line and not mobile, and that they are far more likely to get their news via TV and newspaper. This is a bit of a wild guess, but you have to admit it sounds highly plausible/likely.

I have not seen the poll the article refers to, and therefore have no opinion as to it's accuracy.
delksten
May 20, 2010 3:01 PM
Does anyone know is this specifically for music down loads or does it cover TV shows/films too?
Dybsy
May 24, 2010 1:01 PM
Personally with all of the free online content available why would anyone feel the need to pay for anything. For your Music and more it's likely Guvera will have you covered.

I too haven't seen the poll however, what kind of a survey only involves 1000 people? Reading the poll would be a waste of time.
ITrant
May 25, 2010 11:29 AM
Dubious value of the study aside, who would pay for the current quality of newspapers online anyway? Starved of journalists and journalism, 'newspapers' merely republish government and corporate PR material.

Online, things are no better. Too many articles out of date, recent articles deliberately obscured to sell the print version and the only way I've ever found the online version of a print article is by searching on the journalist's name, article content or headline don't seem to be in the search engine at all.

For reasons of quality and accessibility alone, nobody would pay. And the content? Here in Queensland, the Premier's Department employs more journalists than Newscorp's Courier Mail. How could an online newspaper compete with that?
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Windows 8: Under the hood
Part One of iTnews' enterprise guide to Windows 8.
 
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  90%
 
No
  10%
TOTAL VOTES: 63

Vote