Flattr had subscriptions: if you clicked the Flattr button once, they get part of that month's donation; if you clicked it twice they got added to your recurring list, to get a donation every month.
That sounds too abstract. A subscription model for specific content has proven to work.
Lol, that model had certainly not "proven to work" when Flattr launched in 2010. Sure you can point to Patreon (launched in 2013), OnlyFans (launched in 2016), etc., but that would just be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
PS: I find Flattrs model much simpler: paying a fixed amount, and choosing how many/few people I want to give it to.
IMHO their main problems were: they delivered too early, and failed in what they offered. When they started, there was no donation-economy like we have today on Twitch, Ko-fi, and others, nor was there an established support-hivemind like we have with Patreon, Github and others. So people did not know what they should do with it. And on the other side was Flattr a bit annoying to use in the beginning, and had percent…
Having experience with donation only stuff, I can tell you something with the straightest face: Almost nobody who uses a service, even if they use it a lot, actually goes on to donate. It's a real hockey stick graph where 90% of your donations come from 5% of users. Trust me, everyone says they prefer paying/donating over ads, but when you look at the numbers, just about everyone prefers no compensation (and no ads)…
Personally, I think ads can be quite predatory, which is why I dislike them (if ads themselves had better ethics and curation, I might think otherwise -- I have less issues with sponsorships elected by creators). That most people choose not to pay is a problem I think, but I think even ideally not everyone would pay (and that's fine): they may not have the means (although I guess they could just pay a smaller amount instead), or have too many other subscriptions (that they find need more money). I personally donate to a lot of services knowing that many won't pay (and many aren't able to), and I'm happy to contribute (although I think it would be better for everyone if they considered donating more!)
That sounds too abstract. A subscription model for specific content has proven to work.
Lol, that model had certainly not "proven to work" when Flattr launched in 2010. Sure you can point to Patreon (launched in 2013), OnlyFans (launched in 2016), etc., but that would just be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias PS: I find Flattrs model much simpler: paying a fixed amount, and choosing how many/few people I want to give it to.
I don't understand your comment at all. Subscription models have been successful for decades for the major online newspapers. Flattr could have adapted after Patreon, Substack, etc. proved it successful, they chose not to.
Also it's fine that you like Flattr's model more, but no one else did. They don't exist anymore.
A few alternatives for micro donations that people have mentioned: https://ko-fi.com/ https://github.com/sponsors https://www.patreon.com/ https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ Any others, let me know
I think the one trick is using subscriptions that people opt into one time and just forget about. Using the dodgy psychology tricks of gym memberships to actually help people.
If that's the case, not sure if that's better than ads. I'd rather workout in an ads filled gym for free than paying for la fitness gym membership
I would 100% rather pay a fee. Also for those ads to make economic sense, the gym would be packed wall to wall.