7 ms·

This really resonates with me. I realise a lot of people will pay for individual Twitch subscriptions, YouTube memberships, and Patreon memberships, but it can

by mrkwse 6y ago

This really resonates with me. I realise a lot of people will pay for individual Twitch subscriptions, YouTube memberships, and Patreon memberships, but it can be quite a hard sell in comparison to some of the things you list above. I wish there was a better funding model as those creators. I'd like to direct more money to that category of creator. However paying one person (or team of people) around as much a year as I pay for my TV Licence just cannot compare in terms of value to me as a consumer. YouTube Premium is apparently a reasonable compromise from what I've seen some channels report (a decent bump in income for them for each premium view and for the end-user a decent enhancement in experience across the platform), but I wish there was a similar scheme for more niche web/news publications (Apple News+ looks reasonable, but has a limited catalogue in the UK).

pas 6y ago
Direct donations? Even if they are more hassle than paying ~1-5 USD/mo on Patreon, it likely has a much greater impact on the creator.
- trash3 6y ago
  For Patreon, probably. But it's not so clear for twitch subs since Bezos gets his cut and they get a bump in the twitch algos.
0-_-0 6y ago
Maybe something like an attention based token built into the browser which automatically distributes a fixed amount of money each month to creators that you watched that month. This is already implemented in the Brave browser. Maybe you could simulate subscriptions based on the token being active in a browser or not. E.g. someone can read a paywalled article if they have at least $10 a month distributed such a way (in proportion to attention).
OzzyB 6y ago
The better model for Creators isn't subscriptions but SuperChats, it's the digital version of "don't buy the CD, buy the concert". It's quite common to see people drop $20 for their favorite Creator to read out their comments. It's fun and provides that direct/live link that fans crave. This provides a unique monetization channel that's not available to regular businesses while helping Creators circumvent the pervasive "why should I give you $10/month if Spotify is $10/month" narrative.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  That doesn't solve the absolutely fundamental unsolvable problem that digital has marginal cost so you make 0.01x revenue if you have .01x the audience.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  honestly I find this kinda gross. it feels a little too close to tossing bills around in a strip club. it's not so bad on music streams (eg, here's $5 to play my song), but I also watch a stream where a law student breaks analyzes current events. it's quite incongruous when they stop explaining the legal nuances to read some inane donation message out loud.
  - ajuc 6y ago
    Well it's a business model most artist used for centuries before recording and mass production was possible. Busking is still using it to this day. I find nothing gross in it, it's actually better in many ways because you have immediate feedback so you can develop quicker (whether you want to develop in a particular direction your current audience wants is another matter).
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      maybe this wasn't clear, but I was referring to a live performer with "music streams". donating to make a song request doesn't have that gross feel. it's mainly the paying just to have your comment read that seems weird to me. in the first case you're paying for a performance; in the second, you are basically just paying for a human's attention.
      - jdmichal 6y ago
        Do you get the same impression from, say, paying for VIP tickets in order to meet-and-greet musicians at a concert?
        bentcorner 6y ago
iovrthoughtthis 6y ago
I would really like a system where by a seller wants to make $X/m and so sells their service at a base price of $Y/m. When they have enough customers (C) such that X/C < Y, the price (Y) for all customers drops so that Y = X/C. Obviously, as they gain more customers they may need to increase X to pay for resources or staff which would increase the price.
thesuitonym 6y ago
Something like Nebula, a group of YouTube creators coming together with their own service that costs less than Netflix, but subsidizes their content. It's mostly education/engineering/science based creators, but it seems to be a decent model.
johncalvinyoung 6y ago
I read longform articles and journalism voraciously. When I'm not pulling overtime at work, I usually read 20-50 in-depth articles a day. But the challenge is how widely I read. Sure, there's a bunch at NYT (which I subscribe to), and a bunch at open-access blogs and journals around the net, but the middle are tough. I might normally want to read, over the course of a month, 10-15 articles from each of 15 different paywalled magazines or newspapers. Which is more than the 2-5 free articles typically allowed past their paywalls, but little enough (especially compared to 15 or more competitors) to justify $15-25+ a month per source. Maybe if I was a Wall Street trader the WSJ and Bloomberg are no-brainer expenses, but right now I wouldn't get enough value from them to justify their sky-high subscription costs, but I would like to read a decent handful of articles a month. A few publishers, like NYT or WP, have picked up on this market, and regularly discount to capture various price points, but lots have held onto a 'big subscription or none' model. What I really want is an (expensive) subscription to something like Spotify Premium across publishers. I'd happily fund the pool to the tune of $50-100 a month, if it could get me access to my top 15-25 paywalls. Everyone gets some, some get close to standard subscription rates, but it'd just enable me not to have to worry about whether I've used up my free articles for the month at each origin. And it'd also let me contribute to lots of magazines and things I do appreciate, just not $25/mo appreciation.

by mrkwse 6y ago

pas 6y ago

Direct donations? Even if they are more hassle than paying ~1-5 USD/mo on Patreon, it likely has a much greater impact on the creator.

trash3 6y ago
For Patreon, probably. But it's not so clear for twitch subs since Bezos gets his cut and they get a bump in the twitch algos.

0-_-0 6y ago

Maybe something like an attention based token built into the browser which automatically distributes a fixed amount of money each month to creators that you watched that month. This is already implemented in the Brave browser. Maybe you could simulate subscriptions based on the token being active in a browser or not. E.g. someone can read a paywalled article if they have at least $10 a month distributed such a way (in proportion to attention).

OzzyB 6y ago

The better model for Creators isn't subscriptions but SuperChats, it's the digital version of "don't buy the CD, buy the concert". It's quite common to see people drop $20 for their favorite Creator to read out their comments. It's fun and provides that direct/live link that fans crave. This provides a unique monetization channel that's not available to regular businesses while helping Creators circumvent the pervasive "why should I give you $10/month if Spotify is $10/month" narrative.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
That doesn't solve the absolutely fundamental unsolvable problem that digital has marginal cost so you make 0.01x revenue if you have .01x the audience.
leetcrew 6y ago
honestly I find this kinda gross. it feels a little too close to tossing bills around in a strip club. it's not so bad on music streams (eg, here's $5 to play my song), but I also watch a stream where a law student breaks analyzes current events. it's quite incongruous when they stop explaining the legal nuances to read some inane donation message out loud.
- ajuc 6y ago
  Well it's a business model most artist used for centuries before recording and mass production was possible. Busking is still using it to this day. I find nothing gross in it, it's actually better in many ways because you have immediate feedback so you can develop quicker (whether you want to develop in a particular direction your current audience wants is another matter).
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    maybe this wasn't clear, but I was referring to a live performer with "music streams". donating to make a song request doesn't have that gross feel. it's mainly the paying just to have your comment read that seems weird to me. in the first case you're paying for a performance; in the second, you are basically just paying for a human's attention.
    - jdmichal 6y ago
      Do you get the same impression from, say, paying for VIP tickets in order to meet-and-greet musicians at a concert?
      - bentcorner 6y ago

iovrthoughtthis 6y ago

I would really like a system where by a seller wants to make $X/m and so sells their service at a base price of $Y/m. When they have enough customers (C) such that X/C < Y, the price (Y) for all customers drops so that Y = X/C. Obviously, as they gain more customers they may need to increase X to pay for resources or staff which would increase the price.

thesuitonym 6y ago

Something like Nebula, a group of YouTube creators coming together with their own service that costs less than Netflix, but subsidizes their content. It's mostly education/engineering/science based creators, but it seems to be a decent model.

johncalvinyoung 6y ago

I read longform articles and journalism voraciously. When I'm not pulling overtime at work, I usually read 20-50 in-depth articles a day. But the challenge is how widely I read. Sure, there's a bunch at NYT (which I subscribe to), and a bunch at open-access blogs and journals around the net, but the middle are tough. I might normally want to read, over the course of a month, 10-15 articles from each of 15 different paywalled magazines or newspapers. Which is more than the 2-5 free articles typically allowed past their paywalls, but little enough (especially compared to 15 or more competitors) to justify $15-25+ a month per source. Maybe if I was a Wall Street trader the WSJ and Bloomberg are no-brainer expenses, but right now I wouldn't get enough value from them to justify their sky-high subscription costs, but I would like to read a decent handful of articles a month. A few publishers, like NYT or WP, have picked up on this market, and regularly discount to capture various price points, but lots have held onto a 'big subscription or none' model. What I really want is an (expensive) subscription to something like Spotify Premium across publishers. I'd happily fund the pool to the tune of $50-100 a month, if it could get me access to my top 15-25 paywalls. Everyone gets some, some get close to standard subscription rates, but it'd just enable me not to have to worry about whether I've used up my free articles for the month at each origin. And it'd also let me contribute to lots of magazines and things I do appreciate, just not $25/mo appreciation.