Pain-solution monetisation or “Friction-based revenue model” are models used by businesses today through charging customers to alleviate discomfort, whereby other tactics could be used to create or exacerbates a problem to then sell the solution. In this report there are six monetisation models used as strategies where businesses intentionally introduce ‘point-of-friction’ (e.g., steps that require effort, time, or decision-making) in the customer journey to increase revenue, and its impact will be researched and findings critically analyse within this study:
Survey design questions main tactics
- Pay-to-remove; customer must pay to remove an imposed inconvenience; paying to remove ‘wait times’ (Q.1).
- Pay-to-remove; customer must pay to remove an imposed inconvenience; paying to remove ‘paywall to continue using free version’ (Q.4).
- Pay-to-resolve; customer must pay to resolve an imposed inconvenience; paying for ‘expedited resolution for a fee’ tactic (Q.15, Q.18 & Q.21).
- Artificial friction monetisation, whereby business adds friction deliberately and then charges to remove it; ‘false urgency /scarcity’ tactic (Q.35).
- Ransom Model – ‘Lock-In’, where a company holds something hostage (e.g., data, access) until payment is made –‘vendor lock-in /functionality hostage until payment’ tactic (Q.45). Studying results from “Ransom” models will lean into churn analysis to determine whether paying customers actually stay with the business/use its services.
- Deceptive Monetisation – if the discomfort is hidden or misrepresented upfront –‘tricking and misleading into spending /paying’ tactic (Q.58). If the discomfort is unethical or manipulative, critics might call it a “dark pattern” or “predatory monetisation”.
A survey was created with these friction-based elements within the survey design, examples as follows; making cancellations processed difficult to retain subscribers, offering a free version with limitations to push users towards a paid version, using default options that are more profitable such as ‘pre-selected add-ons’, and so on. These tactic models can lead to customer dissatisfaction and regulatory scrutiny, therefore, research is needed to understand the balance between revenue generation and customer experience. Researching these models is vital to expose harm, especially with the rise and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in financial models and solutions, and therefore to advocate for better practices and AI-containment.
- The Relationship Map shows many relationship surrounds the pressure from tactics; the variable results in highest of likelihood that consumer will NOT be in favour of paying for ‘claims’ (resolution fee) in financial inconvenience to be resolved and with hope to receive compensation in return from spending (on resolution fee).
- The Pie Chart Diagram(s) based on a ‘Pay-To-Remove’ based tactic shows that paying due to friction pressure is not favourable, with lagging frequencies, many did not spend money due to friction pressure and a very likely future scenario is a commonality in responses given. The pie chart of spending money due to encountering friction: shows 15% of participants are likely to spend due to a Ransom Model tactic used by a business ‘Lock-In’, where a company holds something hostage (e.g., data, access) until payment is made –‘vendor lock-in /functionality hostage until payment’ tactic (Q.45). While 28% are likely to spend due to Deceptive Monetisation – if the discomfort is hidden or misrepresented upfront –‘tricking and misleading into spending /paying’ tactic (Q.58). While 20% are likely to spend due to Artificial Friction Monetisation, whereby business adds friction deliberately and then charges to remove it; ‘false urgency /scarcity’ tactic (Q.35) e.g., “Hurry only one stock left!”.
- The highest likelihood to spending at 43% due to a tactic; Pay-to-resolve; customer must pay to resolve an imposed inconvenience; paying for ‘expedited resolution for a fee’ tactic, however data also demonstrates that only 7.7% would spend to expedite a solution when a much higher cases of respondents are highly unlikely to spend money at the expense to resolve a financial inconvenience for hope of getting compensation in exchange. Overall the pie chart data also demonstrates that 60% did not spend money due to encountering friction pressure from these tactics used by businesses, and 7.4% saying highly likely of spending money ‘pay-to-remove’ a friction, and 18.5% somewhat likely in doing so. Data also demonstrates 42.3% rarely spend money to pay for premium versions of online service/apps.
- The Spending Attitudes & Awareness diagram; data demonstrates that as many as 70% respondents felt trapped by businesses pricing or policies and 60% felt tricked of mislead into paying. Data also demonstrates that 76.9% of respondents highly unlikely to spend money at the expense to resolve a financial inconvenience for hope of getting compensation in exchange. However, a high ‘maybe’ of 42.3% would possibly spend towards free versions for online services/app purchases. 75% have not or are highly unlikely to spend money due to a Ransom Model tactic used by a business ‘Lock-In’, where a company holds something hostage (e.g., data, access) until payment is made –‘vendor lock-in /functionality hostage until payment’ tactic. 76% have not or are highly unlikely to spend money ‘pay-to-resolve’ for an expedited solution when the business is at fault or are ethically responsible to be fixing/finding the resolution at their own cost and not at the expense of the consumer’s resolution fees. 65% have not or are highly unlikely to spend money ‘pay-to-resolve’ for expedited resolution for a fee tactic. 60% have not or are highly unlikely to spend money ‘pay-to-remove’ a paywall or blockers to continue with the free version. 52% have not or are highly unlikely to spend money for resolution fee to resolve issues with a support/specialists. While 50% have not or are highly unlikely to spend money due to ‘false urgency or scarcity’ tactics (e.g., “Hurry, only one left!”.
Read more on the recommendations/suggestions given based on the Pareto Analysis findings; where spending attitudes are within the vital few falling below the cumulative curve, meaning that it is of highest priority to address for participants who are spending on ‘pay-to-resolve resolution issues with support for a fee’, in comparison to ransom model tactics being not of highest priority of concern to address perhaps due to lack of awareness. Subscribe to our subscription; a ‘VIP paid member’ to access all posts here.
This critical analysis report was researched and written by Jenny Cameron, Business Analyst & Business Consultant (July 2025).
