This could be huge if applied to YouTube content, as I'm sure there are many parents of iPad children who don't want their kids seeing ads.
Google Contributor
21–30 of 201 posts
Re: Google Contributor
#22The pricing denomination is set both too high and too low at the same time, depending on whom we're talking about. The whole idea of micropayments to support, for instance, content creators was to generally envision a transactional denomination far below $1 -- hence the word "micro." Since even this really never got off the ground in any significant way, isn't it a stretch to imagine that $1/month is a low enough psy…
My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.
Re: Google Contributor
#23"As a reminder of your support, you’ll see a thank you message - often accompanied by a pixel pattern - where you might normally see an ad." Why not remove the frame entirely for participants? Since each website has to opt-in to this, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to remove ads "transparently" (ie without the user ever knowing they were there)
Don't underestimate the psychological value of reminding people that they've done something they want to feel good about. As long as it doesn't add to page load time, a reminder saying "thanks for donating to support this page via Google Contributor" in place of an ad helps keep this program in people's minds, keep them willing to pay, and help them think about it at some time other than when they see the cost charge…
Indeed. It's a little thing, but even a small icon at the top of the page that tells me "I'm supporting this site with cash, I'm awesome", would be a small self-esteem boost; a reminder that I do reward the author whose content I benefit from, and a nice feeling that he's getting my money directly. Just keep it unobtrusive.
Come to think of it, where I'd really like to have it is the browser - say right there in the address bar, next to the RSS button (please, please bring it back!). This way it will be unobtrusive, in a consistent place, and won't interfere with the page layout. Win-win for everyone.
Re: Google Contributor
#24Must Google do everything?
Yes, please. Because they seem to be one of the few companies who make things that don't suck.
Re: Google Contributor
#25The pricing denomination is set both too high and too low at the same time, depending on whom we're talking about. The whole idea of micropayments to support, for instance, content creators was to generally envision a transactional denomination far below $1 -- hence the word "micro." Since even this really never got off the ground in any significant way, isn't it a stretch to imagine that $1/month is a low enough psy…
My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.
Basically, if this is the project I think it is, all they're doing is letting you act as your own advertiser, with the ad that you're running being an empty pixel pattern.
Re: Google Contributor
#26It so happens I've been trying to launch in the same area myself. And I'm not the first to think of it -- Contenture, Kachingle, Readability and I forget the others.
Naturally I think I have additional secret sauce, and a patent + patent pending covering a cryptographically-secured scheme for tracking visits.
But I won't lie, competing with a company with 10,000 engineers and $60 billion in revenue seems unfair. So I'm going to give them a head-start on this one.
Persons interested in learning more, or in throwing umptillions of dollars at me to make it happen, can find my contact details in my profile.
Re: Google Contributor
#27The pricing denomination is set both too high and too low at the same time, depending on whom we're talking about. The whole idea of micropayments to support, for instance, content creators was to generally envision a transactional denomination far below $1 -- hence the word "micro." Since even this really never got off the ground in any significant way, isn't it a stretch to imagine that $1/month is a low enough psy…
My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.
Perhaps, but I think $1 across enough sites would be fine to me. The problem for me is that my dollar will almost certainly go to one or two of the sites each month. In that case, I'll just go pay for that website's upgraded service.
Re: Google Contributor
#28Google's model rests on the assumption that all the ads on the site will be Google ads, and as such this scheme comes with a fairly heavy incentive for content providers to carry Google ads only.
Declaration of interest: we're trying to do something in the same space with content-that-should-be-or-is-paywalled with Financial Times articles on The Browser (http://thebrowser.com)
Re: Google Contributor
#29"As a reminder of your support, you’ll see a thank you message - often accompanied by a pixel pattern - where you might normally see an ad." Why not remove the frame entirely for participants? Since each website has to opt-in to this, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to remove ads "transparently" (ie without the user ever knowing they were there)
The pattern is what worries me most. It should be understated and transparent. More visual noise seems like a distraction.
Re: Google Contributor
#30I like the idea of giving users a painless way to donate to the sites they use. And giving thank-yous in place of advertising is a good way to reduce the incentive to freeload. I do worry that $1-3 a month is much lower than the value I get from the sites I visit, and consequently not enough to support low-traffic sites that should be supported. They also didn't mention how they distribute your money - equally to all…
Equally doesn't seem intuitively fair; per-visit is good but has to be adjusted in the face of AJAXy sites and how hilariously easy it is to stuff the ballot box.
I'm going to guess proportionally. Every other such scheme has been proportional. Google can solve the fake visit problem with pattern-matching wizardry. Readability tried to solve it by turning themselves into a proxy server.
I solved it by using a cryptographically-assured end-to-end scheme that requires two mutually distrustful parties to verify that a request was made.