'Paywalls' and pricing are hot topics in the frenetic world of media at the moment, not least of all because the advertising market is, at best, a little flacid right now. But as more online publishers prepare to explore new business models, a frequently quoted belief is that "people won't pay for content on the web".

The argument to support this perfectly rational view is that with so much free content available online, only a few affluent or insane people will fork out for journalism, art, information, etc.

The announcement that News International and Rolling Stone will be charging for their online content has brought this debate to the fore again and whipped up pundits and commentators into a frenzy.

As is often the case with popular ideas, the notion that "people won't pay" is almost correct. But, rather than offer my explanation freely online, at this stage I'd like to offer you something to consider. I began my marketing career working with FMCG and retail businesses and I think they still provide useful insights into the basic, unchangeable principles of price elasticity and perceived value. Time, location, convenience, trust, familiarity and consumer need states are all factors that play a potent role in affecting both our perception of brands and our propensity to pay for stuff. 

The Calpol vs. Bollinger shocker shown above is one of my favourite examples. It compares the price of handy sachets of analgesics for kids with the price of a nice bottle of champagne... If it's not immediately clear what supermarket pricing has to do with paywalls on websites, please feel free to mail me!