I always imagined that some website/mobile app/service would appear that would let you buy subscriptions for access to multiple publishers at once. I think people have a hard time spending $5 here a month $10 there a month, but would spend maybe $49 for a range of access to sites. I don't know why something like that hasn't taken off yet. You could pick the sites you want access to or they could do a pay out based on where you went and what you read.
So far, for me, the tip jar has been more successful than ads or Patreon (though I am new to Patreon, so, time will tell). I would be happy to get rid of ads altogether (with the exception of one site, for REASONS) if I thought that would drive up tips. But I have experimented a bit and it didn't seem to drive up tips.
Then, whenever I read these discussions, there is a great deal of vitriol about the evil of ads, yet, most people don't actually want to pay for content. They just want it free. When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically.
As a content producer, I find it enormously frustrating to read some of the awful things that get said. It reminds me of the line in All in the Family where Archie says men are supposed to have experience before marriage and women are not and his daughter asks "Who are they supposed to get their experience with?"
My snarky son's answer: Elderly widows should be deflowering young men. It fits all the parameters of the expectations while horrifying most people.
An awful lot of people are only thinking about "I don't want ads" and that's it. They basically want it for free, then don't think about what that means for the big picture.
I don't think that people want things for free. People want things with the least amount of effort, money or not; Steam and Netflix have proven as much in context of piracy. People don't pirate as much because they have always wanted to enjoy games/movies, not derive pleasure from denying publishers money and these services provide a way to do just that.
Adverts are a pain in the back for the user, they take up bandwidth and processing time and that fucks with the experience. If you could simply charge $50 for a ticket for the whole amusement park, once you are in you don't have to worry about paying but only the experience, rather than nickel and dime them people would gladly pay that amount. It's about the convenience/experience.
I don't mind the ads up to a point. For example, I buy "Mopar Muscle" for the ads, not the articles. I'd buy computer mags (yes, I'm dating myself) for the ads as much as the articles, too. The Yellow Pages (I'm really old) were useful for the ads.
If you know of a better means than google ads to do advertisements for a one person shop that isn't going to take enormous time away from producing content, I am all ears.
We don't use ads for the D programming language. What we do, and I've done in the past, is write articles about programming that are interesting in their own right, and that happen to use D:
Pretty much all programming products, even free ones, operate this way. Much of the content you see on Hacker News, and on reddit/r/programming, is of this form.
There are TV shows that do the same thing, such as "Detroit Muscle". Each show is about how to do a repair/customization job on a car, and various tools and products are used to do it (and the makers of those tools and products pay for the show).
Tupperware parties are another example of this sort of thing.
It's like having a free cooking class where you show people how to cook with butter, and you're in the butter business.
The hit TV show "This Old House" was all paid for by the products and tools used in the show. It didn't look like advertising, but that's exactly what it was. And it works, and people love the show (I loved it, too).
That is basically my plan for my next website. But some problem spaces are not served well by that model. Also, I think there is a substantial learning curve for doing something like that well and not being borderline con artist.
> When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically.
I hate ads. I hate that they track you. I hate that they waste data. But most of all I hate that they are annoying. I always use an ablocker and I don't care if you don't get paid because I didn't look at an ad.
I am still busy with my degree this year. (I am studying part time) But next year I want to start my own website. With a blog and a place to share my side projects.
Will I put ads on the website? Fuck no. In fact I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one.
Just because I write some interesting code or article and then share it on the public internet, doesn't mean people now owe me money.
I don't deserve compensation for putting stuff on the internet, and why would anyone else? But if my employer didn't pay me I would be really pissed off. Because we have an agreement that I will write code for them and they will pay me for it.
I don't remember signing a contract with the whole internet saying that I will pay everyone who publicly shares some text or other media.
If someone is butthurt that they can't make a product/service/content valuable enough to sell it for money, but instead rely on advertisers for money, then that is their problem.
Do you think we all deserve to be paid for commenting on hackernews? Lots of people here write incredibly interesting and insightful comments. We all do it for free without complaining.
> You can also just do a tip jar model or patreon.
I've contemplated this kind of thing, but it feels like panhandling, and I'm reluctant to go there. I would do it if I thought I could do so tastefully and respectfully.
I'm a (non-tech-related) "content producer," and I absolutely refuse to put up ads or be a shill or "native advertiser." Instead, I wrote a book, and if people want to support what I do, they can buy it. It's not enough to be a day job, but it probably could be with day-job levels of time and effort, and my "content consumers" appreciate my integrity.
When I had donate buttons, I literally had someone tell me I was panhandling the internet. Tip jars are a better way to signal "It took work to create value here and compensation is appreciated." It has gotten a very different response from people.
I am glad your strategy is working for you. But, if you are interested:
Thanks for the link. I may give this a try and see if people use it. I think I have more drive-by readers than regulars, so this probably makes more sense than Patreon.
BTW, kudos for writing the "Survival Guide." I ran across it at random awhile ago, and it has some great advice.
I think people donating on Patreon get the whole "predictable income makes an artist's life an awful lot easier" thing, if you're looking for a tactful way to approach the topic.
Saying that you'd like to be able to make it your full time job is a very reasonable thing as well, and I imagine people get that you need some kind of salary to do it.
Both of these are things that I, if I were a frequent visitor to your site, would have a pretty good incentive to make happen.
Patreon has a rather large problem for poorer people. Patreon's insistance on taking the money on the 1st of the month is a pain because that is rent day for most people.
A service that allowed a person to select a day (e.g. 12th) or better yet pick a day the way a lot of people get paid (day after third Thursday of the month) would be preferred.
[edit] To give a concrete example. Suppose someone on Social Security wants to pay for their sites/shows/etc. SS pays on the third Wednesday of the month. This person, in order to avoid any bank charges or other foolishness, wants the payment to come the day after that. "Day after 3rd Wednesday of month" would be a good thing to allow.
Patreon allows content produces to make content available for free while a subset of the audience pays for it. If you do it well, that subset gets additional benefits without leaving the larger audience out in the cold with hollow teasers and no real substance. Tip jars allow the same thing: For the content producer to make some money without charging a fee to poor people, who are free to access it.
I will always have ads on my homeless site so that homeless people do not feel like leeches. Traffic alone can put some money in my pocket. But, I would happily remove ads from other sites if I genuinely thought this would lead to a better outcome for me. I have done a lot of nice things for people online for a lot of years and mostly not been paid for it.
This is partly a function of the problem spaces that I am involved in. Some problems are inherently trickier than others. But it is partly a function of being a woman, which both cuts me out of the "old boy network" such that I have difficulty accessing pertinent knowledge and skills and also makes other people prone to thinking I should do it out of the goodness of my heart and my dire poverty is not their problem, which is all kinds of fucked up.
So, at this point, I am more concerned with figuring out how to line my empty pockets with money than I am with the criticisms of other people. They mostly haven't given a damn about what I need and I am at a point where I feel "Yeah, whatever. This resource can absolutely go away. You are not entitled to benefit from me while I get nothing back, assholes."
So, you know, if people want to give me solutions for how to get money in a "good" way that actually improves my bottom line, awesome. If people want to bust my chops about it, not really caring at this point. Being super giving and virtuous does not have a track record of keeping me fed.
No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the 20th or day after the 3rd Wednesday might be just fine. A lot of people living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck manage their money closely. Given how banks work, a $1 charge at the wrong time is seriously problematic.
I realize SV never has to worry, but how about making it easier for janitor who cleans your building or the person making your coffee to participate in the digital economy?
My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon.
Or in other words, if "a $1 charge at the wrong time can be seriously problematic", you shouldn't be spending on patreon, you should be instead saving up that money until a $1 charge isn't problematic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this problem is solvable by waiting a month to join the service, and paying each month with last month's funds.
Also the snark isn't appreciated.
Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
I kind of agree with your basic point, but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off.
It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay their bills.
If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
It is critical that we find ways to be less exclusive or the world will go to hell in a hand basket. Giving people a choice as to when they pay is an important detail. I agree with that point, though it isn't the only issue here. There are other issues. But their POV is inherently less problematic than yours. Treating poor people like they can't and shouldn't support the services they value is an excellent way to make sure the world continues to be designed for the comfort and convenience of the 1% and to hell with everyone else.
>but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off.
Agreed. Although at least for patreon, which in my experience is freemium, you aren't worrying about basic access. If we were talking about a newspaper subscription or internet access or an all access subscription to some content creator who only gave access to patrons that might be different, but "premium access to extra content a creator makes" is something that I don't spend money on. In an ad-free world that might change, but it also might not.
Now, on the other hand, there's perhaps an honor in saying that I shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford this. I think its difficult, because you either end up inadvertently taking advantage of people or alienating people, but I don't see a way to do neither. (I'm thinking of cigarettes and lottery tickets as corollaries here).
>If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
I make two comments here. The first is that (again at least with patreon), I see it as an expressly premium service. My view might be wrong, but from that perspective its worth replacing "Patreon subscription" with "concierge drycleaning subscription", and I hope you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that as a general rule people really shouldn't be using a concierge drycleaning service if they are living paycheck to paycheck.
The second is that this isn't (necessarily) a 99%/1% issue. My comment was specifically addressing people with no savings and who were living paycheck to paycheck. While that's a lot of people, its not 99% (at least in the US). That's not to say that you're overall point is wrong (classist design is bad except in specific circumstances), but if you're going to make that claim, I think its important to be clear about the classes.
This whole thread ended up being about a replacement for Ads. So, when news / entertainment goes to a payment arrangement like Patreon, what do those people do? The answer "don't" and "save" are not realistic. Especially if a simple change would open up some help by being a bit more user centric. Waiting a month for an expense you actually have the money now for is just plain poor manners on the billing agency. When Comcast can do this stuff then others might want to think about the their approach on a customer service level.
Sorry for the snark, but I am getting a little sick of lamenting the plight of other folks while not doing the simple things to help.
> Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
>Waiting a month for an expense you actually have the money now for is just plain poor manners on the billing agency.
Perhaps, but I also don't necessarily think of Comcast as a design we should follow. If I understand
>Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
correctly, your implication is that this will cut people who can't pay out of services (ie. things become subscription based and then non-payers are excluded). That at least can be solved by freemium models (which is what Patreon does), although Mz goes further and states that even that can be alienating to people who want to pay but can't.
FWIW, as someone who is a consumer of a lot of things that I don't subscribe or pay for (including some patreon based groups), who I probably should start supporting, because I can and I'd prefer that they continue existing, I've never felt like I don't have access to media I want (note that this is different than "do I feel like I'm unable to support something I enjoy"). I'm relying on the morality of creators to continue producing (good) free content, and only producing special content at the price, but so far at least that's been a good assumption.
> I also don't necessarily think of Comcast as a design we should follow
I think when Comcast does it better, people should consider that the bottom level they need to achieve.
I do imply it will cut people off. People need to think about these issues as soon as "free" dies. I await the various Netflix-for-news attempts.
Just as the next level of problem is the bank-less. That is one more step down the line. A lot of the bank-less have jobs that pay above minimum wage but had a bad streak. Walmart understands this given their financial services. I'm starting to think with ads going down the tube someone dealing with web content better start walking through the implications.
You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual.
I think you have a point, but perhaps you should submit it as a suggestion directly to Patreon. Second, I have tip jars so people can give once without making a monthly commitment. Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.
I intentionally list dollar amounts of $1, $3 and $5 to solicit small sums so people who can't afford more than $1 feel okay about giving $1. The jar is set up so you can then enter a quantity if you want to give more, for example 2 Tips at $5 to leave a total of $10. Most people who tip leave me $5 or more. But I do sometimes get $1. (This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
> You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual.
> Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.
A lot of people don't want charity and are fine with paying their own share. What I am trying to say is simple, the timing of payment is often critical for people. $10 on day 1 of a month is not the same as $10 in the third week. Most utilities get this. It would be nice if people planning the future of paying for website, news, etc. get this through their head before they leave out part of the population.
> This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
That is a good attitude because treating other poor people as charity cases often leads to contempt even if its subtle. A lot of poor people won't be that way later, but they will still have the memories.
> Elderly widows should be deflowering young men. It fits all the parameters of the expectations while horrifying most people.
"When you're young, it's all filet steak, but as the years go by, you have to move on to the cheap cuts. Which is fine with me, because I like those. More flavorful, or so they say." - M. Gustave (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Probably wouldn't work for bigger companies or people who don't want to publicly reveal themselves as the owner of the site. There needs to be a personal element for that to be efficient
And larger companies can have a department devoted to developing quality advertising (or other solutions). Google ads tend to appeal to very small operations that need a plug and play solution to try to monetize their work.
I am still wrestling with the question. I like the progress I am seeing. It is a good trend for me. But it is far from a solved problem. However, for the traffic numbers etc that I have, I seem to do better than average.
I started subscribing and paying for Blendle about a month ago. Their service shows me article summaries from otherwise expensive publications like The Financial Times, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Economist, etc. I can view a full article from $0.10 to about $0.50 without advertisements.
I spend a little over a dollar a week and I get to occasionally read articles from sources that are expensive to buy a full subscription for.
I wonder if publishers find Blendle's usage statistics to be useful. They certainly track users'navigation across their own web properties, but knowing which articles people are willing to pay for must be a good signal.
I've just started trialing Blendle, it looks very promising although the prices feel slightly higher than I'd be happy with and I'm not sure how I feel about the browsing/article discovery interface.
But in principle I'm a huge fan of micropayments for journalism, so I'm going to keep using it for a while and see how it goes!
I tend to only read a few articles a week on Blendle so itt is not expensive, butt yes, for a 'news junkie' who reads news everyday it could get expensive.
>I can view a full article from $0.10 to about $0.50 without advertisements.
Thats at least an order of magnitude more expensive than its worth (to me), and 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more than they would make from ads. As an ad-blocking user who reads a lot of online content, I am in favor in the pay for content model, but it has to come at an appropriate price. A couple cents per reading minute is the high end of what most news/magazine/blog type writing is worth to me.
Pre-internet you could buy the Sunday edition of your city's newspaper for 50 cents. This included dozens of in-depth articles. So yea, probably on the order of a penny per article. Though it was heavily subsidized by car dealer advertisements and the classifieds.
It was pretty much completely paid by advertising; the purpose of charging readers is because paid circulation numbers is an important metric used by advertisers.
Yeah, thats pretty much it -- I remember print media too! Quality digital journalism from somewhere like NYT or WP (your opinions may vary) is worth $10/year/sub to me as an occasional reader. Unfortunately, they cost 10x that.
I'd be interested in something that was the web site equivalent of Spotify, but not if it was HTML HBO.
I think the reason the online music subscriptions have done so well is that their catalogs span multiple publishers, and customers really don't want to subscribe to multiple services. While there's minor differences, you pretty much can get access to any music you can think of.
Otherwise you just end up with some crummy bundling service where you pay a premium for a few things you are interested in, and waste money on the rest of the junk.
The reason why it has not taken off is because success depends strongly from network effect. Starting small provides no value for subscribers.
What we need is subscription payment service network __protocol__. It should be protocol because we don't want to give monopoly for single organization.
You pay something lke $5 -$60 per month for one company of your choosing. Whenever you visit a web page and pay, consume content or tip, your browser leaves an anonymous authenticated tokens/coins/whatever behind. Services can turn these tokens into money.
Piano Media tried this in central Europe and folded.
Reason as I understand it: downward spiral. Publishers of worthy content learn to make people pay for content, and then go off-platform once they have large enough audience to keep the whole profit.
Weaker publications stay in a bundle, but at that point not many people want to pay.
Is this a future of Spotify model as well? Taylor Swift or Adele are now powerful enough to try to break away.
There's no reason to believe that this would get rid of ads in the long run. Once the big publishers have established such a payment model, what keeps them from adding ads on top of it? You pay $5 for printed newspapers and magazines, do they come ad-free?
I'd love to have something like that. We already have Spotify (et al) for music. PressReader for newspapers. If the music industry can be dragged kicking and screaming into the bulk buying model, why can't online publishers?
This only works for sites that show google ads. This is not a subscription service and probably doesn't pay sites much as I am signed up for this and I pay maybe $6-$9 a month and I spend a lot of time online. Google Contributors is a way for readers to opt out of ads, it's not a way to fund sites other than to maybe opt to whitelist in an adblocker. But it's not a lot of money.
I probably wouldn't mind paying for the online newspaper an article at a time, like a nickel. For some reason, the idea of a subscription just irks me - it makes me feel guilty when I don't read the paper, because hey I paid for it.
texture.com looks quite promising, they cover well known magazines (Time/New Yorker/Forbes etc.) I don't know anything else, I just heard them advertised on a podcast - US/Canada only for some reason so I can't check it out.
