Why pay? An empirical study of paid-for SQA sites in China

The once failed paid-for social question and answer (SQA) service is in full swing in China. The traditional profit model, which typically relies on advertising, is abandoned in this case. Instead, users have to pay for content and service. The purpose of this paper is to explore why users are willing to pay in paid-for SQA sites.,This study carried out 14 valid semi-structured interviews to investigate “why did they pay.” The interviewees are users of three popular paid-for SQA sites. The qualitative data were obtained from valid interviews and processed through thematic analysis.,The analysis revealed five overarching themes: paying for the answerer’s heterogeneous resource, paying for more credible answer, the cognition of the question, the price is affordable and expecting potential revenue. The five themes and their sub-themes constitute the motivation for why users would pay in paid-for SQA.,As a new business model for online information services, paid-for SQA sites are facing fierce competition from traditional ones. The findings not only indicate the importance of establishing a reciprocal network relationship among users, but also provide a better understanding of users’ needs and demands for paid-for SQA services. The results are helpful for paid-for SQA sites to conduct a differential competitive strategy according to the user’s paying motivation.,To authors’ knowledge, this is the first study, which provides primary-source data and valuable insights into users’ paying motivation in the context of new paid-for SQA sites in China.

[1]  Junghee Lee,et al.  The computer-mediated communication network: exploring the linkage between the online community and social capital , 2010, New Media Soc..

[2]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry , 1988 .

[4]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Free Versus For-a-Fee: The Impact of a Paywall on the Pattern and Effectiveness of Word-of-Mouth via Social Media , 2016, MIS Q..

[5]  Soojung Kim,et al.  Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site , 2009 .

[6]  Gilad Ravid,et al.  How social motivation enhances economic activity and incentives in the Google Answers knowledge sharing market , 2007, Int. J. Knowl. Learn..

[7]  Kai H. Lim,et al.  Contributing high quantity and quality knowledge to online Q&A communities , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  Silvia Gabrielli,et al.  A Review of Online Advertising Effects on the User Experience , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  Kevin G. Corley,et al.  Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research , 2013 .

[10]  Rich Gazan,et al.  Social Q&A , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Lesley Chiou,et al.  Paywalls and the demand for news , 2013, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[12]  Els Gijsbrechts,et al.  Try It, You'll Like It - Or Will You? The Perils of Early Free-Trial Promotions for High-Tech Service Adoption , 2016, Mark. Sci..

[13]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[14]  Bernard J. Jansen,et al.  Identifying and predicting the desire to help in social question and answering , 2017, Inf. Process. Manag..

[15]  Sanghee Oh,et al.  The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing information, knowledge, and experiences in online environments , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  J. Oh,et al.  Research agenda for social Q&A , 2009 .

[17]  D. Raban The incentive structure in an online information market , 2008 .

[18]  Snehasish Banerjee,et al.  So fast so good: An analysis of answer quality and answer speed in community Question-answering sites , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  P. Biernacki,et al.  Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling , 1981 .

[20]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[21]  Alexander Bleier,et al.  Personalized Online Advertising Effectiveness: The Interplay of What, When, and Where , 2015, Mark. Sci..

[22]  Wenyu Dou,et al.  Will Internet Users Pay for Online Content? , 2004, Journal of Advertising Research.

[23]  Rens Vliegenthart,et al.  Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication , 2013 .

[24]  J. Kratzer,et al.  Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects , 2006 .

[25]  Kerk F. Kee,et al.  Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation 1 , 2009 .

[26]  Hsiang Iris Chyi,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Online News: An Empirical Study on the Viability of the Subscription Model , 2005 .

[27]  Chien Chou Internet Heavy Use and Addiction among Taiwanese College Students: An Online Interview Study , 2001, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[28]  A. Carson Behind the newspaper paywall – lessons in charging for online content: a comparative analysis of why Australian newspapers are stuck in the purgatorial space between digital and print , 2015 .

[29]  Li Zhai,et al.  Why users contribute knowledge to online communities: An empirical study of an online social Q&A community , 2015, Inf. Manag..

[30]  Jonathan E. Cook,et al.  Paying for What Was Free: Lessons from the New York Times Paywall , 2012, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..