3 ms·
Micropayments are fundamentally bad for websites. It is an inferior business model. Think about it this way. Businesses need stable, predictable income. If the
by JacobJans 11y ago
Micropayments are fundamentally bad for websites. It is an inferior business model.
Think about it this way. Businesses need stable, predictable income. If they depend on "micropayments," then they would depend on producing consistently high quality articles. I am a subscriber to the New Yorker. They have some of the best writing out there -- but some of it is just not that good, in my opinion. And yet, I still pay for it.
A subscriber is willing to forgive bad content -- and still give you money. You're able to build a relationship, and ask for the money once (a year), not constantly.
$70 * 1,000 subscribers = $70k a year. Plenty to support the livelihood of a good writer.
How many "micropayments" would they need? What if they struck out a few months in a row?
They'd have to find another job.
- justizin 11y agoAll of this is true of the existing advertising system, which is a micropayment system, but instead of taking money from me, it takes resources and information about me and gives them to advertisers for a fraction of a cent.
- manicdee 11y agoWhat about a two-tier system: flattr/contribution for casual visitors, and a monthly/annual subscription which removes all ads (including Contributor fillers)? As a new visitor I might click the flattr/contributor button (equivalent to "+1"), then when reviewing a statement I realise that I am visiting your site a lot, so switch to subscription instead. The core issue is people recognising the value of good journalism or tech writing in terms of dollars, and being willing to pay for stuff that is worthwhile. After that the problem is only removing "friction" in getting a payment to the publisher.