51–60 of 61 posts
"Set your own price", on the other hand, seems to be a model with multiple success stories. It has the good vibes of donation, while also having the carrot of a specific item for sale at the other end. Plus, you can use the data as a starting point for future pricing.
The little donate buttons we were supposed to click on to support our favorite bands as we gave the finger to the RIAA never panned out. It turns out we really were just cheap bastards that didn’t want to pay for music after all. This is tangential and potentially destructively off-topic, but when exactly did music become something that we all need to pay for? It seems to me that historically music has been something…
I don't think it takes talent to make music. It takes talent to make good music. Talent is something I believe in rewarding.
There are a lot of things in this article I disagree with. 1) Wikipedia doesn't have 5 billion unique visitors (there are only 1.6 billion internet users in the world). And they only put up banners asking for money when they need it, not all the time. So both variables in coming up with the "$.00124/visitor" estimate are incorrect. 2) Tax deduction does not make something cost-free. For most people, a donation saves…
Thank you for your notes. 1.) I didn't say Wikipedia has 5 billion uniques. I said it gets 5 billion visitors . In ad sales a visitor is different than a unique. I changed it to "visits" so avoid the confusion. 2.) Tax deduction makes the perception of something's cost free. 3.) If you can still get a product without paying for something (i.e. tipping) the price is either what you ask for ($5) or nothing. That's the…
Your math as it stands is impossible, and you're still using it to support your argument. Even if you assumed every internet user in the world uses Wikipedia, that means that the average donation per user would be 0.003875, more than 3 times your estimate. With more reasonable math (and taking into account that Wikipedia does not fundraise 24/7 and is not aggressive) you can see that the average visitor is likely to donate an order of magnitude more than you're claiming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't feel bad about not giving them money—they need to be free to read to sustain the level of net-positive impulse-edits they get (similar to how chewing gum needs to be at the checkouts of grocery stores to sustain its level of purchase.) Encouraging Wikipedia's free use, as a side-effect, makes more people likely to edit it, and thus makes it more valuable.
chewing gum needs to be at the checkouts of grocery stores to sustain its level of purchase I don't chew gum anymore, but when I did, I always got it from the chewing gum aisle. It's cheaper there. I'm sure I'm not the only one who figured this out.
"Makes the donation essentially cost free to the donor via tax deduction." You what now? Either the US tax system works in some very weird way or that doesn't make any sense.
Pretend I donate a hundred dollars to NPR. I get a tote, mug, and some other stuff that I might value (i.e., otherwise purchase) at $50, but is nominally valued at $10. I then get to deduct $90 from income on my tax return, and assuming I'm in a high tax bracket, I get to pay about $30 less in taxes. Hence, I effectively donated $20 - while the recipient effectively received $90. Not quite cost free, but not terrible…
I'm kind of having a hard time taking anything else this author says seriously when he also says that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making things up at this point. I suggest you revisit how you arrive at conclusions and what constitutes evidence - you're hurting yourself by not being able to tell correct from desired.
When can I meet your polite alias?
Imagine that you meet a person who is terribly confused about logic and evidence to a point where he takes any random anecdote or even a lack of one and reinterpets it as data backing his preconceived notions. Now imagine trying to set this person straight and help them out of this trap. Do you think he would resist the change and take it as a personal affront? Well, there is always a slight chance that it will help.
The little donate buttons we were supposed to click on to support our favorite bands as we gave the finger to the RIAA never panned out. It turns out we really were just cheap bastards that didn’t want to pay for music after all. This is tangential and potentially destructively off-topic, but when exactly did music become something that we all need to pay for? It seems to me that historically music has been something…
If I want to "tip" Wikipedia, for instance, I have to go find my credit card, type in lots of numbers, possibly setup an account, worry about the individual handling of my card information by Wikimedia, etc. That's way too much effort for drive-by donations a la those at the restaurant.
I assume that's what tipjoy and some of these other startups set out to fix. I don't think simplification of and success by tipping is particularly a lost cause, I just think that it wasn't easy or prominent enough. Was there a browser extension? If I only had to enter my info once, and there was a button on my browser where I could send any registered site a tip while I was on the page without any special effort, I think I would be prone to tip more often.
By the same token, I think that you're much, much more likely to make some money if you follow the more conventional "x costs x, please pay me" model, even if you surreptitiously proliferate content outside of the paywall to increase exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
chewing gum needs to be at the checkouts of grocery stores to sustain its level of purchase I don't chew gum anymore, but when I did, I always got it from the chewing gum aisle. It's cheaper there. I'm sure I'm not the only one who figured this out.
I don't know how your grocers work, but mine just scan the UPC that comes as part of the product's packaging—and that's the same no matter which aisle you picked it up in. (You could just as easily bring something in you bought outside the store and "buy" it again.) Or do you just mean that the aisle section has larger bulk versions of the same gums?
The little donate buttons we were supposed to click on to support our favorite bands as we gave the finger to the RIAA never panned out. It turns out we really were just cheap bastards that didn’t want to pay for music after all. This is tangential and potentially destructively off-topic, but when exactly did music become something that we all need to pay for? It seems to me that historically music has been something…
Making music that will last, not just confection, is a very intense activity. It is always technical, requires staying aware of the competition and staying ahead of it. It's a full-time job.not a hobby. I'm not arguing that good music is 'elite' music, but that most lasting music is good in direct proportion to the energy used creating it.
This would be common sense in most areas, but many people who don't make music somehow get the astonishing idea that good music is 'easy'. Look at any recognized 'genius' composer or singer/songwriter and count the number of big works they wrote that have lasted once the confection has faded away. The list is nearly always small: competition is fierce.
If listening to throwaway confection satisfies, what the here-today gone-tomorrow bands create may satisfy many consumers. Yes you'll find exceptions, but the bulk of music which is art, not just product, isn't made by weekend warriors. Like great furniture, great sculpture, great architecture, great anything: it needs support.