There's nothing new here. Micropayments have been tried countless times. We did it ourselves and came to the same conclusions that people just don't value content highly nor want to pay for it at any sustainable rate. [1] Advertising is faster, easier, more passive, and more egalitarian than direct payments. Many people you might not consider (like billions around the world) are happy to view ads in exchange for free…
Why wouldn't these two approached work in parallel ? An ad-free experience for those willing to pay and an ad supported one for those who don't. I'm sure there are nuances like the politics you mention in your linked comment. Just curious why.
100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
141–150 of 277 posts
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#142Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't these two approached work in parallel ? An ad-free experience for those willing to pay and an ad supported one for those who don't. I'm sure there are nuances like the politics you mention in your linked comment. Just curious why.
Companies don't want to advertise to the people with no money.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#144None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
This kind of seems like a troubling insight at first glance, but it doesn't pass basic sanity checks imo. You could make the same exact argument about any other type of industry. Watch: >The [pool of discretionary income people have to spend on books] is a small fraction of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets], therefore it will always be more profitable to run free bookstores that try to make money by putti…
My argument is basically that no web monetization plan that involves redirecting some of our discretionary spending towards paying websites can make up for the advertising revenue they currently get, because that ad revenue is funded by not only a portion of our discretionary spending, but a portion of ALL our spending, and the non-discretionary portion is much larger. Tide and Toyota are always going to have more money to spend on advertising than Bobby and Jill have the discretion to spend on sponsoring websites.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#145None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
Alternatively if advertising became significantly less effective companies would spend less money on it. That's the upside of Ad-blocking which could theoretically make a huge impact.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#146It's crazy, that we still do not have something like "Cash" on the internet. A simple, anonymous way to pay 10 cent or so. To use a website or read an article. That would make the world so much better for indie developers. Currently, an indie dev makes orders of magnitude less money per pageview then Google, Facebook and Co. Because those have all that advertising technology and ecosystem that indie devs don't have.…
The answer to this was meant to be Bitcoin, hence the title of the whitepaper "Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system". Unfortunately there is a lot of money being spent to keep that goal from being realized. If you really want to see "cash on the internet" I would advise you to do some research and find the cryptocurrency that best resembles it, then help build it. It will be an uphill battle the whole way.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#147There's nothing new here. Micropayments have been tried countless times. We did it ourselves and came to the same conclusions that people just don't value content highly nor want to pay for it at any sustainable rate. [1] Advertising is faster, easier, more passive, and more egalitarian than direct payments. Many people you might not consider (like billions around the world) are happy to view ads in exchange for free…
A far cleaner design for the web would be essentially an underlying payment system that governs all web traffic. You would essentially be paying for bytes, at a fairly low level. The issue is, people want to be completely unaware of the payment process so that their browsing habits are not perturbed. And yet at the same time, they must be able to trust that they won't be hit with a gotcha charge from some rent-collector troll site. You can't have both without some level of oversight, or some seriously negative consequences for people who set their "tolls" too high.
One of the biggest advantages of pay-to-play is deterrence of astroturfing and spam. If it costs money to send an email, the losers are the parasites who send millions of unwanted emails at everybody else's expense. But for these types of second-order social effects to take root, you really need a wide rollout.
The modern-day web is exactly backwards - it charges bots nothing and real humans everything. When a website is starved for bandwidth because demand for the content is higher than the web's ability to supply that content, it just breaks. It becomes the host's problem. In any other arena, the prices go up, and demand backs off until supply returns. Having tons of people demand the content you're serving from your website should be a _good_ thing, but right now it means you need to scale or die and cut off your revenue stream completely.
If it were profitable to be able to serve web content to people, then the decentralized web would become an obvious and inevitable reality, especially over the final mile. Rather than having to sign up for Comcast, they would make their money invisibly, behind the scenes, through the magical internet currency that was used to pay for bytes. You'd never have to talk to some fuck about your xfinity account again. No website would ever have to think about how to pivot into profitability. No youtube streamer would have to shill for products in the middle of their videos - the fact that you're watching it would be making youtube money directly, which youtube would pass on to the creators at a far more transparent way. No more demonetization because some companies might not want to be associated with you. Everything would be better. Everything. Making the web free is actually part of what led to its zombification.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of seems like a troubling insight at first glance, but it doesn't pass basic sanity checks imo. You could make the same exact argument about any other type of industry. Watch: >The [pool of discretionary income people have to spend on books] is a small fraction of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets], therefore it will always be more profitable to run free bookstores that try to make money by putti…
I think what you're missing is that discretionary spending is not all spending, and marketing budgets are a percentage of all spending. When I go to CNN.com right now, I see ads for Tide pods and Toyota SUVs. That ad spend came from our supermarket and car payments, which you can't redirect to tipping websites unless you want to stop eating and driving to work. My argument is basically that no web monetization plan t…
And millions of people do it, because they want to. If it cost money to read a a website, then people might do that too - if they deemed the content worthy of their hard-earned dollars. Millions of people already pony up $1000 for the latest smartphone so they can read stuff online at all hours of the day. I really don't think the web creators should be this worried about whether or not people actually want their stuff. They desperately want it; in fact, most people are probably literally addicted to it.
Of course, maybe you're trying to draw the distinction between paying for a good and voluntarily making a donation. If that's the case, I'm with you - the latter idea is a loser. But if popular websites just made you pay to use them, and the amount was tiny, and the actual process of paying was completely frictionless and unnoticeable in terms of the browsing experience, then people would totally do it. I think a lot of people think they learned this fundamental truth that people don't want to pay for things to read on the internet, when what they really learned is that people don't want to be interrupted and asked for their credit card details. But if you can make that process seamless, people will happily fritter away thousands clicking through links.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of seems like a troubling insight at first glance, but it doesn't pass basic sanity checks imo. You could make the same exact argument about any other type of industry. Watch: >The [pool of discretionary income people have to spend on books] is a small fraction of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets], therefore it will always be more profitable to run free bookstores that try to make money by putti…
I think what you're missing is that discretionary spending is not all spending, and marketing budgets are a percentage of all spending. When I go to CNN.com right now, I see ads for Tide pods and Toyota SUVs. That ad spend came from our supermarket and car payments, which you can't redirect to tipping websites unless you want to stop eating and driving to work. My argument is basically that no web monetization plan t…
> eating and driving to work.
This confused me for a second before I realized it was intentional. Good one
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#150None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
From a bottom-up perspective, I've read that ad income is typically on the order of $0.01-$0.10 per page view. As a more or less middle-class American, I'd be willing to pay that. Or at least, I would if ad blockers stopped working.
And while that wouldn't be affordable for most people worldwide, I'm sure that there's some way to normalize by user geolocation. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if ad payments aren't already normalized by user geolocation.