Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exploring alternative funding models for the web

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#61

Post by danShumway »

TylerE wrote: post #15
99052882514569 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tips are cool, but a browser-based micro-payments setup will create a more consistent alternative revenue stream.

People have been beating the micro-payments horse since at least the late '90s. I don't get it, at all. No one likes turning every action into a financial decision. History has shown that buffet-style pricing (Netflix, Spotify, et al) is much more appetizing - because you only have to make the decision ONCE. There is no financial pain for consuming content.

Eh.

Netflix is a good example of buffet-style offerings, but you have to remember that Netflix was born out of cable, which is a much better example of buffet-style, and was largely despised because it was buffet-style. People hated paying for dozens of channels when they only wanted sports.

I would add a caveat to this that people like paying a low price for a lot of content. If the price of a buffet is too high, then people will start to ask why they can't just pay for the small amount of food or content that they want to consume.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#63

Post by brycehamrick »

I've come to the conclusion that advertising is the only viable monetization model for most content businesses. This is not a new phenomenon, this is the same reason advertising is dominated television (even paid cable channels), print media like newspapers and magazines, and even in sports. The economics of it are pretty straightforward—customers simply don't value most content at what it costs to produce it.

I do a good amount of media buying and content production. From where I stand, the issue is in the consolidation of power. Content discovery and ad placement are far too closely related, which is bad for everyone involved (well, all but the ad platforms). Going directly to publishers is possible but difficult, it's not currently a scalable solution.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#64

Post by ehsankia »

jasode wrote: post #5

>One such partner that we are collaborating with is Scroll. [...] The service enables web users to pay for an ad-free experience on their favorite sites, across their devices. To try and understand what this is, I go to the landing page of partner's site, Scroll: https://scroll.com/ Their webpage has no obvious explanation of what this is. Is this a tip jar? Micropayments? Subscription? I then go to Scroll's blog: ht…

The gif/video makes it just look like its a mix of ad-blocker + AMP or something. Definitely very non-descriptive landing page.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#65

Post by Townley »

brycehamrick wrote: post #63

I've come to the conclusion that advertising is the only viable monetization model for most content businesses. This is not a new phenomenon, this is the same reason advertising is dominated television (even paid cable channels), print media like newspapers and magazines, and even in sports. The economics of it are pretty straightforward—customers simply don't value most content at what it costs to produce it. I do a…

It's definitely viable, but I'm not sure about it being the only way.

Netflix shows that there's an appetite towards paying for content, and HBO furthers the idea while demonstrating how that same approach can be much more profitable.

For journalism side, premium, niche publications like The Information putting bets on the idea that users are willing to pay a lot of money for content as long as it's much better and more useful than the free alternatives.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#66

Post by decasteve »

majewsky wrote: post #39
decasteve wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a DNS TXT record with the info.

A meta tag is better granularity because different pages on the same domain could be attributed to different authors. Also, if we put bank account numbers in DNS (metaphorically speaking), we will we a lot more DNS spoofing attacks.

I was thinking more of an additional layer of verification or public key.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#67

Post by pkaye »

jerrac wrote: post #4

For a long time I've thought that we need a browser based universal tip jar. Some way that lets me read a blog post, and then tip the site with however much I want. 1 cent, 25 cents, 1 dollar, 200 dollars, any amount. From my understanding of things, the biggest thing in the way is that processing payments costs money. The second thing is making sure the money goes where it is supposed to. With services like Scroll,…

> From my understanding of things, the biggest thing in the way is that processing payments costs money.

The biggest problem is people don't want to pay much for contents. They have no problem paying $2/day for a cup of coffee but then taking about online contents they will talk about cents.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#68

Post by [deleted] »

jasode wrote: post #5

>One such partner that we are collaborating with is Scroll. [...] The service enables web users to pay for an ad-free experience on their favorite sites, across their devices. To try and understand what this is, I go to the landing page of partner's site, Scroll: https://scroll.com/ Their webpage has no obvious explanation of what this is. Is this a tip jar? Micropayments? Subscription? I then go to Scroll's blog: ht…

[deleted]

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#69

Post by lone_haxx0r »

jerrac wrote: post #4

For a long time I've thought that we need a browser based universal tip jar. Some way that lets me read a blog post, and then tip the site with however much I want. 1 cent, 25 cents, 1 dollar, 200 dollars, any amount. From my understanding of things, the biggest thing in the way is that processing payments costs money. The second thing is making sure the money goes where it is supposed to. With services like Scroll,…

I wouldn't trust Mozilla with such a thing. Actually, I wouldn't trust any silicon valley corporation.

I predict that Mozilla would ban wrong-thinkers from their service using the excuse of hate speech.

Want to donate to a progressive/leftist organization? Mozilla will gladly help you. Want to donate to a right wing conservative? Mozilla doesn't allow "bigots" on their platform.

They did exaxtly that with the Dissenter extension.

It has to be decentralized.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#70

Post by kadendogthing »

Townley wrote: post #65
brycehamrick wrote: post #63

I've come to the conclusion that advertising is the only viable monetization model for most content businesses. This is not a new phenomenon, this is the same reason advertising is dominated television (even paid cable channels), print media like newspapers and magazines, and even in sports. The economics of it are pretty straightforward—customers simply don't value most content at what it costs to produce it. I do a…

It's definitely viable, but I'm not sure about it being the only way. Netflix shows that there's an appetite towards paying for content, and HBO furthers the idea while demonstrating how that same approach can be much more profitable. For journalism side, premium, niche publications like The Information putting bets on the idea that users are willing to pay a lot of money for content as long as it's much better and m…

>Netflix shows that there's an appetite towards paying for content

Content that was originally created with advertising money (The Office). Whether or not Netflix will last the next 5 years is debatable and unknown.

Post reply on HN