Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
editorandpublisher.com
Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#2I will be interested to see how they keep people from gaming the system.
Once you get someone to support your site the goal will be to get them to visit your site as many times as possible in a month. I think this will lead to increased sensationalism and gimmicks.
Also, visits are typically delimited by a period of inactivity (say, 30 minutes). I can think of several ways off the top of my head that publishers could manipulate that inactivity window to create additional visits (thus increasing their slice of the pie).
It is an interesting idea, but as always, the devil is in the details.
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#3This is basically the "pay what you like" monetization that Radiohead used - 60-65% paid nothing and the rest paid an average of $6 (30% of market price). Personally, I feel that this is not sustainable.
Newspaper monetization could be in the form of customized filtering. While many companies try to provide such a service, the quality isn't high enough that someone would pay from it.
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#4I will be interested to see how they keep people from gaming the system. Once you get someone to support your site the goal will be to get them to visit your site as many times as possible in a month. I think this will lead to increased sensationalism and gimmicks. Also, visits are typically delimited by a period of inactivity (say, 30 minutes). I can think of several ways off the top of my head that publishers could…
In general sites with a behavior of more repeat usage benefit more. For example I visit hacker news more than NYtimes or New York review of books. Hackers News updates every minute, new york review of book once a month or whatever...
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#5Anyone reminded of those PBS pledge nights right after nature and NOVA?
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#6I will be interested to see how they keep people from gaming the system. Once you get someone to support your site the goal will be to get them to visit your site as many times as possible in a month. I think this will lead to increased sensationalism and gimmicks. Also, visits are typically delimited by a period of inactivity (say, 30 minutes). I can think of several ways off the top of my head that publishers could…
Gaming this type of system is certainly possible, but I can identify a few factors that would limit this.
For one, no matter how large "their slice of the pie" is, the publishers won't make much if the user doesn't feel that the content is valuable. Thus, blogs and what not will still be encouraged to deliver quality content to truly increase earnings.
I agree, however, that basing payout on the number of visits to a "supported" site is flawed. I could see myself supporting a site, forgetting that I did so, and then end up paying much more than I had intended. No thanks.
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#7I will be interested to see how they keep people from gaming the system. Once you get someone to support your site the goal will be to get them to visit your site as many times as possible in a month. I think this will lead to increased sensationalism and gimmicks. Also, visits are typically delimited by a period of inactivity (say, 30 minutes). I can think of several ways off the top of my head that publishers could…
Gaming this type of system is certainly possible, but I can identify a few factors that would limit this. For one, no matter how large "their slice of the pie" is, the publishers won't make much if the user doesn't feel that the content is valuable. Thus, blogs and what not will still be encouraged to deliver quality content to truly increase earnings. I agree, however, that basing payout on the number of visits to a…
You only pay whatever you set your fixed monthly total Kachingle subscription to be (say $10). The number of visits just allocates what percentage of that fee goes where. The idea is that once you decide to support a site, you don't have to think about how to divvy up your support; it's based on your usage patterns.
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#8Very interesting idea, but I don't think it will work on a commercial scale. It's based on gratitude and goodwill from consumers who are used to getting things for free. Many will pay and a few sites will make decent money, but the majority of people won't see anything in it for them, as they can get the content for free. Just like TipJoy (which I love), this seems geared more towards hobbyists than serious businesses. Hope I'm wrong.
Also, this is an especially hard sell with the economy the way it is.
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#9Kindle and its model fits into this discussion somehow. Where's the itunes of publishing? I know it sounds silly to pay for something you'll read only once, but perhaps if it was cheap enough and super convenient.
Many of us would pay for Hacker News - is that because of the variety of news sources, the discussion, the community?
Re: Forget Micropayments -- Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content
#10This is basically the "pay what you like" monetization that Radiohead used - 60-65% paid nothing and the rest paid an average of $6 (30% of market price). Personally, I feel that this is not sustainable. Newspaper monetization could be in the form of customized filtering. While many companies try to provide such a service, the quality isn't high enough that someone would pay from it.
How high does the quality have to be before the average user pays for it?