A recent article published by The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/why-porn-and-journalism-have-the-same-big-problem/258893/ and the continued rantings of ICM Registry’s Stuart Lawley (the mastermind behind the .XXX rip-off), which is the reference point for the piece: http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/58466-the-new-republic-of-porn are both wonderful examples of non-adult-industry bods ‘assuming’ what adult consumers might or might not want without any real figures or insight behind their claims.

The subject in question? Adopting micro-payments for buying porn to try and reclaim lost revenues due to huge influx of free porn and tube sites in recent years.

The Businessweek article featuring Lawley states:

Next year, ICM plans to introduce a proprietary micropayment system. This service, Lawley promises, will help blue-chip pornographers fight back against the proliferation of free and pirated smut online. “We’re going to do for adult what Apple (AAPL) did for the music business with the iTunes store,” he predicts.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this exactly what mobile does? Haven’t we already been using this business model since 2003?

And secondly, doesn’t the whole thing actually boil down to one of Cherry’s ‘preaching platform’ points – CONSUMER CONTEXT?

With adult entertainment, there is no magical single strategy that works for everything or that is going to resolve the ever decreasing expectation to pay for services, because porn, like many other things in life – billing options included – is a completely personal concept that requires targeted context for the consumer in question at POS (point of sale).

The point being that micro-payments for porn, not only has a place in the industry, but has already been commercially proven as far back as 9 years ago (eeek!). What both The Atlantic and Stuart Lawley fail to focus on is the CONTEXT in which micro-payments are used as a billing method and how their relevance to their environment, geographical location and technical situation defines their success or failure.

I’m sorry, but I just really dislike unimaginative business model replications being wrapped up and pushed as a something ‘new’ (something that is all too common in an industry that is supposed to be as innovative as mobile).