37 ms·

We refuse to pay for content, and we refuse to view ads. I keep hearing "Then come up with a different business model, just look at X" where X is simply burnin

We refuse to pay for content, and we refuse to view ads. I keep hearing "Then come up with a different business model, just look at X" where X is simply burning VC, and then we all complain when X goes away or X starts to show ads or charge. Models like Patreon don't scale. If you can figure out a way to monetize without ads or paywalls, I'd love to hear it.

jkaunisv1 10y ago
Why do you think Patreon-esque models don't scale? I don't have info one way or the other but I'm curious why you're so strongly of the opinion that they don't.
- dreamsofdragons 10y ago
  We did an assessment a while back, looking for options, and I can't share that. But this essentially sums it up. https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators Sure, it's a good pay check for one, acceptable for two if you're in the top 10 or 20 patreons, but nobody is coming back to your site if you have 1 or 2 contributors. Now, put together a team to compete with current media, and it simply doesn't add up. This could change, but I was expecting bigger numbers by now. edit: I just want to clarify, we didn't go with a Patreon model. My expectation was that the amount donated for Patreons would be bigger by now.
  - riffraff 10y ago
    it looks like the "quality" of patreons & what kind of "product" you produce matter. The last has 2 entries with similar number of patreons (Aaron Mahnke, podcast, with 1726 and Jessica Nigri, cosplayer, with 1634) and vastly different income (8k vs 23k).
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    I'd argue that Patreon was never intended to support content/media companies. It was designed to allow individuals to create content and "sell" it directly to the people consuming it in a way that they'll actually pay for it. In a way, it was designed to allow people to avoid working for/supporting media companies.
onion2k 10y ago
If you think of "simply burning VC" as "wealthy benefactors subsidising content for everyone" then it looks like a very appealing model.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Well, if something can't make money in a honest way (and no one is willing to support it out of goodness of their heart) - maybe it doesn't deserve to exist? I'd say Internet would be 100x better if those sites that complain about "business models" all went bust.
- matt4077 10y ago
  The New York Times? Wired? Guardian? WSJ? ProPublica?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Yes. Yes. Yes. WSJ really can't figure out a business model for itself? ProPublica - you understand the conflict of interest present here?
    - matt4077 10y ago
      I reduced the op's statement to 'I don't care about content provided by professional writers' because each and every one of them/the institutions employing them is/has been trying to figure out a business model. And the WSJ is as far as I know not one of those offering a full RSS feed for free, so that'd probably fall under "not honest" in their definition.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        One thing I notice that needs to be pointed out: "professional writers" != "good writers". "Professional" is sometimes treated as a synonym for "good" / "serious", but IMO shouldn't because it isn't. Professional writers are those who write for a living. Today's market does not promote good writing. So yeah, I don't care about content provided by professsional writers, because more often than not, it's not content worth reading.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    Newspapers actually do have a shot at figuring this out. Some let you read a few articles for free, and ask for a small payment for more, some experiment with publishing platforms for per-article content via micro-payments (e.g., https://blendle.com https://blendle.com), others simply make a selection of articles and news available for free to act as an advertisement for their paid subscriptions.
blowski 10y ago
What if I don't want to make money from my content? I just want to share it with the world, let them read it (or not read it) however they want, share it, copy it, comment on it, link to it. That was the dream of the early internet, and with the centralised nature of Facebook, Google Groups it has faded. It's easy enough for me as somebody technical. But what about my non-technical friends? They move to Medium, Facebook, Blogger, etc, as a way of hosting their content because it's easier. WordPress is probably the remaining champion of the easy-to-use open web, and all we do is bitch about how slow and insecure it is.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > What if I don't want to make money from my content? That is perfectly fine and there is nothing that stands in your way of doing that - more power to you! There is a contingent who do not want to pay for, or view ads on content from publishers who would like to make money from their content (because it is their day-job)
  - blowski 10y ago
    I agree, but I was referring to Medium's business model (because of the OP's comment) - get people to write your content for free, and then make money off it. It's frustrating that they block distribution of your content to increase their own revenues. It's a completely different use case to BBC, the Guardian, NYT, etc, who pay people good salaries to write their stories.
    - untog 10y ago
      Then people who are concerned about that shouldn't use Medium. It's not as if there aren't a million other free blogging platforms out there.
  - vintermann 10y ago
    Well, when are the publishers' demands reasonable? A lot of online media is less about adding value, and more about doing whatever it takes to get your attention. Not to mention opinion writers or critics: They already have the privilege of pushing their opinions on a large audience. Why should we pay them? For their eloquence? Sure it's a lot of work, being persuasive in writing, but is it the audience who should pay for being persuaded? I think that the collective action problem of paying for the stuff we want can be solved, will be solved - even is solved, in increasingly many ways. But there's a lot of things we're used to that we don't really want, in proportion to what we used to pay for it.
brownbat 10y ago
Note: dreamsofdragons's contribution was brought to you by Arby's.
- brownbat 10y ago
  Sorry for the snark, but a significant portion of what I read online is not ad supported, it's just people driven by a need to share ideas. It strikes me as ironic when someone uses uncompensated content to criticize uncompensated content.
thisrod 10y ago
Crikey's business model comprises a daily email and a monthly bill. They've managed to grow steadily for over a decade, and they complain more about defamation lawsuits than about add blockers. The important news would get covered if every city the size of Melbourne had one of those. The real problem might be that it's advertisers who need lots of reporters; the public doesn't, because there is only so much news that's worth paying to read. The only answer would be to avoid trying too hard to scale.

jkaunisv1 10y ago

Why do you think Patreon-esque models don't scale? I don't have info one way or the other but I'm curious why you're so strongly of the opinion that they don't.

dreamsofdragons 10y ago
We did an assessment a while back, looking for options, and I can't share that. But this essentially sums it up. https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators Sure, it's a good pay check for one, acceptable for two if you're in the top 10 or 20 patreons, but nobody is coming back to your site if you have 1 or 2 contributors. Now, put together a team to compete with current media, and it simply doesn't add up. This could change, but I was expecting bigger numbers by now. edit: I just want to clarify, we didn't go with a Patreon model. My expectation was that the amount donated for Patreons would be bigger by now.
- riffraff 10y ago
  it looks like the "quality" of patreons & what kind of "product" you produce matter. The last has 2 entries with similar number of patreons (Aaron Mahnke, podcast, with 1726 and Jessica Nigri, cosplayer, with 1634) and vastly different income (8k vs 23k).
- vertex-four 10y ago
  I'd argue that Patreon was never intended to support content/media companies. It was designed to allow individuals to create content and "sell" it directly to the people consuming it in a way that they'll actually pay for it. In a way, it was designed to allow people to avoid working for/supporting media companies.

onion2k 10y ago

If you think of "simply burning VC" as "wealthy benefactors subsidising content for everyone" then it looks like a very appealing model.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Well, if something can't make money in a honest way (and no one is willing to support it out of goodness of their heart) - maybe it doesn't deserve to exist? I'd say Internet would be 100x better if those sites that complain about "business models" all went bust.

matt4077 10y ago
The New York Times? Wired? Guardian? WSJ? ProPublica?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Yes. Yes. Yes. WSJ really can't figure out a business model for itself? ProPublica - you understand the conflict of interest present here?
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I reduced the op's statement to 'I don't care about content provided by professional writers' because each and every one of them/the institutions employing them is/has been trying to figure out a business model. And the WSJ is as far as I know not one of those offering a full RSS feed for free, so that'd probably fall under "not honest" in their definition.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      One thing I notice that needs to be pointed out: "professional writers" != "good writers". "Professional" is sometimes treated as a synonym for "good" / "serious", but IMO shouldn't because it isn't. Professional writers are those who write for a living. Today's market does not promote good writing. So yeah, I don't care about content provided by professsional writers, because more often than not, it's not content worth reading.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Newspapers actually do have a shot at figuring this out. Some let you read a few articles for free, and ask for a small payment for more, some experiment with publishing platforms for per-article content via micro-payments (e.g., https://blendle.com https://blendle.com), others simply make a selection of articles and news available for free to act as an advertisement for their paid subscriptions.

blowski 10y ago

What if I don't want to make money from my content? I just want to share it with the world, let them read it (or not read it) however they want, share it, copy it, comment on it, link to it. That was the dream of the early internet, and with the centralised nature of Facebook, Google Groups it has faded. It's easy enough for me as somebody technical. But what about my non-technical friends? They move to Medium, Facebook, Blogger, etc, as a way of hosting their content because it's easier. WordPress is probably the remaining champion of the easy-to-use open web, and all we do is bitch about how slow and insecure it is.

sangnoir 10y ago
> What if I don't want to make money from my content? That is perfectly fine and there is nothing that stands in your way of doing that - more power to you! There is a contingent who do not want to pay for, or view ads on content from publishers who would like to make money from their content (because it is their day-job)
- blowski 10y ago
  I agree, but I was referring to Medium's business model (because of the OP's comment) - get people to write your content for free, and then make money off it. It's frustrating that they block distribution of your content to increase their own revenues. It's a completely different use case to BBC, the Guardian, NYT, etc, who pay people good salaries to write their stories.
  - untog 10y ago
    Then people who are concerned about that shouldn't use Medium. It's not as if there aren't a million other free blogging platforms out there.
- vintermann 10y ago
  Well, when are the publishers' demands reasonable? A lot of online media is less about adding value, and more about doing whatever it takes to get your attention. Not to mention opinion writers or critics: They already have the privilege of pushing their opinions on a large audience. Why should we pay them? For their eloquence? Sure it's a lot of work, being persuasive in writing, but is it the audience who should pay for being persuaded? I think that the collective action problem of paying for the stuff we want can be solved, will be solved - even is solved, in increasingly many ways. But there's a lot of things we're used to that we don't really want, in proportion to what we used to pay for it.

brownbat 10y ago

Note: dreamsofdragons's contribution was brought to you by Arby's.

brownbat 10y ago
Sorry for the snark, but a significant portion of what I read online is not ad supported, it's just people driven by a need to share ideas. It strikes me as ironic when someone uses uncompensated content to criticize uncompensated content.

thisrod 10y ago

Crikey's business model comprises a daily email and a monthly bill. They've managed to grow steadily for over a decade, and they complain more about defamation lawsuits than about add blockers. The important news would get covered if every city the size of Melbourne had one of those. The real problem might be that it's advertisers who need lots of reporters; the public doesn't, because there is only so much news that's worth paying to read. The only answer would be to avoid trying too hard to scale.