3 ms·

This whole post assumes the only options which can conceivably exist for monetising content are: (1) ads, or (2) paying for single pageviews (and (3) doing it f

This whole post assumes the only options which can conceivably exist for monetising content are: (1) ads, or (2) paying for single pageviews (and (3) doing it for free). Obviously this is a fallacy: there are numerous alternative ways to do things.

Kranar 6y ago
The article states the two options: Paywalls vs. ads. Now it's not that those are the only two conceivable options, it's that those are the only two options that are reasonably successful at scale. I'm sure you could think up a donation system, or do something similar to what the Brave browser does, but those do not scale. Of course if you have some alternative approaches that work and produce viable business models, it would be great to hear them.
- andrepd 6y ago
  What do you mean by "scale" in this context? I fail to see how, having not tried alternative approaches, you conclude that they do not "scale".
  - ryan93 6y ago
    So google should give up 180 Billion in revenue because some idea you cant name might work?
    - andrepd 6y ago
      I don't think "but company wants to make money" is a reasonable argument for anything.
  - Kranar 6y ago
    Can you please answer the question about the specific alternative approaches you are proposing?
    - andrepd 6y ago
      I already did elsewhere in this thread, see the sister comment.
robbrown451 6y ago
Maybe you could list ones you think could work...? I've heard several proposed, none of them make a lot of sense to me. Patreon? Government grants? Or what?
- andrepd 6y ago
  Sure! One idea I like is this: you pay a small, fixed subscription on top of your internet bill. This amount is then given proportionally to the websites/services you visit. This is nice for several reasons: even a small amount (~3-5$) gives a similar or higher revenue for content creators than ads do (a very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate based on youtube CPM). Plus, there's no problem with the friction of paying for things: you pay the same, regardless of watching 1 or 1000 videos (the netflix model, the cable tv model, heck any subscription model). Plus of course: no ads :)
  - robbrown451 6y ago
    Proportionally? How does that work? Is it based on time of usage? So sites will now have an incentive to keep you on the site as long as possible? Not sure I like that. Also, do people who use the internet for half an hour a week pay the same as those that spend all day online? Not sure I like that either. I do like the general idea, I suppose, but trying to make it reward people who actually add value, proportional to that value, is not an easy problem.

Kranar 6y ago

The article states the two options: Paywalls vs. ads. Now it's not that those are the only two conceivable options, it's that those are the only two options that are reasonably successful at scale. I'm sure you could think up a donation system, or do something similar to what the Brave browser does, but those do not scale. Of course if you have some alternative approaches that work and produce viable business models, it would be great to hear them.

andrepd 6y ago
What do you mean by "scale" in this context? I fail to see how, having not tried alternative approaches, you conclude that they do not "scale".
- ryan93 6y ago
  So google should give up 180 Billion in revenue because some idea you cant name might work?
  - andrepd 6y ago
    I don't think "but company wants to make money" is a reasonable argument for anything.
- Kranar 6y ago
  Can you please answer the question about the specific alternative approaches you are proposing?
  - andrepd 6y ago
    I already did elsewhere in this thread, see the sister comment.

robbrown451 6y ago

Maybe you could list ones you think could work...? I've heard several proposed, none of them make a lot of sense to me. Patreon? Government grants? Or what?

andrepd 6y ago
Sure! One idea I like is this: you pay a small, fixed subscription on top of your internet bill. This amount is then given proportionally to the websites/services you visit. This is nice for several reasons: even a small amount (~3-5$) gives a similar or higher revenue for content creators than ads do (a very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate based on youtube CPM). Plus, there's no problem with the friction of paying for things: you pay the same, regardless of watching 1 or 1000 videos (the netflix model, the cable tv model, heck any subscription model). Plus of course: no ads :)
- robbrown451 6y ago
  Proportionally? How does that work? Is it based on time of usage? So sites will now have an incentive to keep you on the site as long as possible? Not sure I like that. Also, do people who use the internet for half an hour a week pay the same as those that spend all day online? Not sure I like that either. I do like the general idea, I suppose, but trying to make it reward people who actually add value, proportional to that value, is not an easy problem.