3 ms·

> wide spread micropayments I see this on HN a LOT, but I am really not sure it's a great model. The thing about ad-supported revenue is that you can still co

> wide spread micropayments I see this on HN a LOT, but I am really not sure it's a great model. The thing about ad-supported revenue is that you can still consume the content if you can't afford it. I'm simplifying a little, but the people who convert on ads are basically subsidizing the content for the rest of us. In our society the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy and the people who fall into the latter group may or not be. But the point is that with micropayments only the rich have access, and with ad-supported revenue everyone has access. I think most people prefer the latter.

ForHackernews 8y ago
With proper browser design, you could support both models. load_ads_unless(payment >= $0.0001) Whether or not sites would suffer the added complexity probably depends on how much money is on the table.
Nursie 8y ago
> the people who convert on ads are basically subsidizing the content for the rest of us. Do they? Or is it the people who buy the products, regardless of ad conversion?
- ankit219 8y ago
  Depends on how savvy or data driven is the marketing team of the advertiser(?).
- O_H_E 8y ago
  > content I don't think there is a "physical" product here. Mostly Articles and Videos
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Ha yeah we all pay for the marketing campaigns regardless. Its factored into the price of every product you buy. The money for internet ads doesn't just spawn out of the ether.
adimitrov 8y ago
> In our society the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy and the people who fall into the latter group may or not be. [citation needed]. Telemarketing used to target people who could only barely afford it, and well educated, well earning folks from the younger generation tend to be tech savvy. The ones who don't know what's up are either old or uneducated (poor.) That's at least a counter hypothesis if not outright refutation of your claim, since I don't actually know any of the numbers here myself.
- fabricexpert 8y ago
  Yea but they could afford it, ethically that sucks but they still had the money to spend. Have you ever wanted to buy something small and literally didn't have the money in your account? This is how a huge number of people live, every day, day to day. Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > they still had the money to spend. you did claim > the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy now you say "yeah okay it sucks ethically", and shift the goal posts to something else entirely, from "wealth" to "they could buy it"? You're playing fast and loose with the exploitation, both financially and mentally, of others. You can't just ignore the costs of exploitation of people who buy shit they can't afford because their life sucks, and the sheer pollution of minds by advertisement, all the needlessly created "needs", too, because they can't be easily quantified. > Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it. So, social services in a country could confirm that a person is actually on welfare. If they are, sites can make certain things free for them, and/or others can donate a small share (10%?) of their micropayments to those who have nothing. That's not a fleshed out suggestion, just the first thing from the top off my head. Allow people to sign up to get a few free articles per month. Before you say it can't be done, show us you thought about it at all. You're also implying that the best or all the essential content would be micropayment content, which is a huge assumption.
- deleted 8y ago
LaundroMat 8y ago
Can you substantiate your claim that "the people that fall in the conversion group are generally wealthy"? My feeling is that the opposite is true, so I'd be happy to see more evidence for one or the other.
- fabricexpert 8y ago
  When I saw wealthy, I mean they have money to spend on the product they're buying. Money or access to credit or whatever. This is absolutely true as someone is buying stuff driven through marketing. A huge percentage of the people who don't buy are doing so not because the ads aren't effective, but because they don't have money to purchase. With a micropayment model those people just won't look at the content, because they don't have money in their account to do so.
  - tremon 8y ago
    Money or access to credit These are definitely not the same thing.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  He is absolutely correct. Wealthy in that you have access to ten dollars discretionary to spend per month. A friend of mine is from India and got into programming through free content with ads on the page. Imagine people for whom a dollar is a lot, who have no credit card to link into your system, who have no money to buy your stuff and no way to buy it even if they had the money. Even a $0.01 charge would be impossible because they simply don't have the tool necessary to buy your stuff over the Internet. I mourn the Internet that included people like them.
mtgx 8y ago
I think the "tip model" could be greatly expanded. The reason it doesn't work as well now is because for one the ad revenue model exists, and when a system already dominates, people tend to stop looking for alternatives or embrace new ones. Why bother to educate people to donate money when you can just put ads on your content? Also, when 99.9% of content-makers use ads, it means you have a much smaller pool of potential donors, too. When most users on the internet can donate and are used to donating, it becomes much easier to receive donations for any random piece of content. And second, there's great friction in the existing micro-tip model, because the payment companies take big portions out of the small tips. Plus, there's quite a bit of fragmentation as not everyone has a PayPal account, or Apple account, or Google Contributor account, or Amazon account, etc. I think cryptocurrencies will eventually solve this issue, if what we've seen so far with Steemit.com, d.tube, and others like them is any indication of that. Once people get into any cryptocurrency at all, the liquidity of tips greatly increases, and it becomes much easier to tip someone with a cryptocurrency. It's still in the super-early stages, though. It could take another 10 years before this becomes more mainstream. I don't really see any other way for this to work. The Google Contributor or even Flattr models will not work because they are not decentralized and interoperable enough with others like them. You'll never see the majority of people on the web use Google Contributor or Flattr. It needs to be an ecosystem of such services that all integrate and interoperate with no friction and content creators can be paid with any of them. The tipping model needs to be more like email than Apple iMessage, so that everyone can have one and use it with any other similar system.
starbeast 8y ago
>But the point is that with micropayments only the rich have access, and with ad-supported revenue everyone has access. I think most people prefer the latter. As a a counter to that, I've been watching 3blue1brown's maths videos on Patreon. Payments get you early access to content, but everything gets posted up eventually and it seems preferable to having ads.

ForHackernews 8y ago

With proper browser design, you could support both models. load_ads_unless(payment >= $0.0001) Whether or not sites would suffer the added complexity probably depends on how much money is on the table.

Nursie 8y ago

> the people who convert on ads are basically subsidizing the content for the rest of us. Do they? Or is it the people who buy the products, regardless of ad conversion?

ankit219 8y ago
Depends on how savvy or data driven is the marketing team of the advertiser(?).
O_H_E 8y ago
> content I don't think there is a "physical" product here. Mostly Articles and Videos
Tsubasachan 8y ago
Ha yeah we all pay for the marketing campaigns regardless. Its factored into the price of every product you buy. The money for internet ads doesn't just spawn out of the ether.

adimitrov 8y ago

> In our society the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy and the people who fall into the latter group may or not be. [citation needed]. Telemarketing used to target people who could only barely afford it, and well educated, well earning folks from the younger generation tend to be tech savvy. The ones who don't know what's up are either old or uneducated (poor.) That's at least a counter hypothesis if not outright refutation of your claim, since I don't actually know any of the numbers here myself.

fabricexpert 8y ago
Yea but they could afford it, ethically that sucks but they still had the money to spend. Have you ever wanted to buy something small and literally didn't have the money in your account? This is how a huge number of people live, every day, day to day. Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > they still had the money to spend. you did claim > the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy now you say "yeah okay it sucks ethically", and shift the goal posts to something else entirely, from "wealth" to "they could buy it"? You're playing fast and loose with the exploitation, both financially and mentally, of others. You can't just ignore the costs of exploitation of people who buy shit they can't afford because their life sucks, and the sheer pollution of minds by advertisement, all the needlessly created "needs", too, because they can't be easily quantified. > Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it. So, social services in a country could confirm that a person is actually on welfare. If they are, sites can make certain things free for them, and/or others can donate a small share (10%?) of their micropayments to those who have nothing. That's not a fleshed out suggestion, just the first thing from the top off my head. Allow people to sign up to get a few free articles per month. Before you say it can't be done, show us you thought about it at all. You're also implying that the best or all the essential content would be micropayment content, which is a huge assumption.
deleted 8y ago

LaundroMat 8y ago

Can you substantiate your claim that "the people that fall in the conversion group are generally wealthy"? My feeling is that the opposite is true, so I'd be happy to see more evidence for one or the other.

fabricexpert 8y ago
When I saw wealthy, I mean they have money to spend on the product they're buying. Money or access to credit or whatever. This is absolutely true as someone is buying stuff driven through marketing. A huge percentage of the people who don't buy are doing so not because the ads aren't effective, but because they don't have money to purchase. With a micropayment model those people just won't look at the content, because they don't have money in their account to do so.
- tremon 8y ago
  Money or access to credit These are definitely not the same thing.
scarejunba 8y ago
He is absolutely correct. Wealthy in that you have access to ten dollars discretionary to spend per month. A friend of mine is from India and got into programming through free content with ads on the page. Imagine people for whom a dollar is a lot, who have no credit card to link into your system, who have no money to buy your stuff and no way to buy it even if they had the money. Even a $0.01 charge would be impossible because they simply don't have the tool necessary to buy your stuff over the Internet. I mourn the Internet that included people like them.

mtgx 8y ago

I think the "tip model" could be greatly expanded. The reason it doesn't work as well now is because for one the ad revenue model exists, and when a system already dominates, people tend to stop looking for alternatives or embrace new ones. Why bother to educate people to donate money when you can just put ads on your content? Also, when 99.9% of content-makers use ads, it means you have a much smaller pool of potential donors, too. When most users on the internet can donate and are used to donating, it becomes much easier to receive donations for any random piece of content. And second, there's great friction in the existing micro-tip model, because the payment companies take big portions out of the small tips. Plus, there's quite a bit of fragmentation as not everyone has a PayPal account, or Apple account, or Google Contributor account, or Amazon account, etc. I think cryptocurrencies will eventually solve this issue, if what we've seen so far with Steemit.com, d.tube, and others like them is any indication of that. Once people get into any cryptocurrency at all, the liquidity of tips greatly increases, and it becomes much easier to tip someone with a cryptocurrency. It's still in the super-early stages, though. It could take another 10 years before this becomes more mainstream. I don't really see any other way for this to work. The Google Contributor or even Flattr models will not work because they are not decentralized and interoperable enough with others like them. You'll never see the majority of people on the web use Google Contributor or Flattr. It needs to be an ecosystem of such services that all integrate and interoperate with no friction and content creators can be paid with any of them. The tipping model needs to be more like email than Apple iMessage, so that everyone can have one and use it with any other similar system.

starbeast 8y ago

>But the point is that with micropayments only the rich have access, and with ad-supported revenue everyone has access. I think most people prefer the latter. As a a counter to that, I've been watching 3blue1brown's maths videos on Patreon. Payments get you early access to content, but everything gets posted up eventually and it seems preferable to having ads.