I'll formalize the thoughts a bit later, but I think most important lesson is that most people who make good content for free online don't want to be paid like this. If I were flattr, I'd pick a bigger market to attack to get profitable and then keep this model alive for those who want it.
Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
31–40 of 64 posts
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#32Flattr, and Why It's Not: http://www.websnark.com/archives/2010/02/by-the-way-the.html
Not knowing the exact amounts involved isn't a bug -- it's a feature. One major credible theory as to why previous micropayments systems failed is that even thinking about amounts added too much friction. A little like converting a previous voluntary activity to a paid activity, assigning any exact value to it causes a different decisionmaking-scheme to be applied -- which can then kill conversion. Who cares if every…
It's not that thinking about amounts adds friction, it's that it changes the psychology.
Your doctor friend might give you health advice for free, but wouldn't give it for $1.
Although there is still money involved, it's not at the forefront, so I think people's psychological motivations are different when they click that button.
The challenge will be convincing people to sign up in the first place.
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#33[deleted]
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#34[deleted]
[deleted]
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#35Flattr, and Why It's Not: http://www.websnark.com/archives/2010/02/by-the-way-the.html
That article is wrong. 25 cent micro transactions? Right. The reason MP's failed is not because MP are a bad idea, but because the implementation wasn't realistic. Flattr solves several problems, and does it realistically, and elegantly.
[deleted]
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article is wrong. 25 cent micro transactions? Right. The reason MP's failed is not because MP are a bad idea, but because the implementation wasn't realistic. Flattr solves several problems, and does it realistically, and elegantly.
Flattr creates a system where neither the giver nor the receiver knows how large a donation is until next month. That's not really a solution and it certainly isn't elegant.
It's not a replacement for PayPal, it's a supplement to AdSense.
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article is wrong. 25 cent micro transactions? Right. The reason MP's failed is not because MP are a bad idea, but because the implementation wasn't realistic. Flattr solves several problems, and does it realistically, and elegantly.
Flattr creates a system where neither the giver nor the receiver knows how large a donation is until next month. That's not really a solution and it certainly isn't elegant.
You can't just say something and pretend like it's a problem.
How is Flattr not a solution? Why is it important to know how much you are giving someone? As a receiver, how is this at all important?
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#38Flattr, and Why It's Not: http://www.websnark.com/archives/2010/02/by-the-way-the.html
Not knowing the exact amounts involved isn't a bug -- it's a feature. One major credible theory as to why previous micropayments systems failed is that even thinking about amounts added too much friction. A little like converting a previous voluntary activity to a paid activity, assigning any exact value to it causes a different decisionmaking-scheme to be applied -- which can then kill conversion. Who cares if every…
Well, there's a new friction point added -- each click slightly devalues all previous clicks that month. So now you're thinking "is this comic strip really as good as that recipe for strawberry pie I read last night?"
I think Flattr might be on to something, but the friction isn't gone.
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#39I think Flattr (or something like it) has the potential to create a competitive economic system for digital goods. Traditionally, if you produce something of value, people will pay for it, and the content creator is rewarded. That model doesn't work well for digital goods, since they're nonrival (if you have an mp3, I can have it as well, with no loss to you) and nonexcludable (you can't stop people having the good,…
"Traditionally, if you produce something of value, people will pay for it" but if there's better value elsewhere that's where they'll go. In this case the best value of all is FREE ie no flattr account.
Hopefully it will reach a critical mass sufficient to allow sites to REQUIRE a flattr account to see their content. Note that this is different from requiring a subscription, since you aren't forced into donating to them. But you are forced into jumping into the 'donation scheme' so if they produce content you like, why not click it?
I'm not sure what kind of critical mass that would require though. I think in some niche areas it would be possible without much effort if there was some sort of banding together among the major content producers for that niche.
Re: Flattr, and Why It's Brilliant
#40I'm really all about Flattr. I wrote a blog post about it when it was announced. Big wins, as far as I'm concerned: * By being subscription based, it's 'set it and forget it.' * By introducing an upper limit, I don't have to worry about overspending my budget. * Flattr's model appeals to me: if I upvote fewer things, they mean more. Sounds about right. * One click donations are so much easier than trying to find and…
what's the incentive to set it up in the first place if you're not a content creator? Non content creators will mentally file it in their 'something virtuous to do when I have enough money' aka never_never. The content creators who end up being net donors will stop because their motivation was to make money not give it. This scheme and the optimism surrounding it sounds like a throwback to the internet bubble.
Supporting content authors. No, really, I'm serious.
I made a comment below about this, you're thinking about the wrong metric. It doesn't matter if everyone does this, it matters if enough do to sustain whatever projects are using it. I myself have made money on a project through solely donations. Not a ton, but that project is also on hold for a minute.
I think you're being overly cynical, and you think I'm being overly optimistic. The truth, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle.