3 ms·

I provide what I believe to be rare and valuable information. My readers have confirmed it many times. I live well from affiliate marketing. I don't need to pi

by nicbou 2y ago

I provide what I believe to be rare and valuable information. My readers have confirmed it many times. I live well from affiliate marketing. I don't need to pitch anything; I merely mention available options where relevant. I wouldn't consider these mention to be ads as they don't affect the content at all. That allows me to work on the website full time, so it works. Donations don't work. At all. Even the people I personally assist over multiple emails, the people who tell me that the website saved their lives don't donate. Donations are around 1% of my income, if that. I considered state funding, since I'm doing their job for them. I seriously explored that option, but my contacts who get such funding made it very clear that it would be a waste of time. So what's left? Bringing customers to businesses, and getting a commission for it. It's the only option that leaves me fully in control.

shanecleveland 2y ago
Perfectly said. Your readers do not have to use your website, they choose to. And they can choose to leave your website, and they can choose not to click on your affiliate links. When and ad comes on the radio, I can change the station. When an add comes on the TV, I can change the channel. I cannot force either one to not broadcast the ad to me and go back to normal programming.
- nicbou 2y ago
  That is fair. However my readers (and I) choose to keep using websites and getting things from creators, but strip them of their income. We expect everything to be free, but the quality content to keep coming. Oh and now it has to feed AI too. In that sense they're not leaving. They're consuming my work and occasionally even creating more work, and not giving anything in return. This is something I'm okay with. In my case it works that way by design. My website is meant to be a free resource. However in the absence of paying users, we're stuck with commercial patrons. Mine have no leverage, but that's very unusual.
culopatin 2y ago
So… ads. Except that you write them instead of showing a gif.
- nicbou 2y ago
  And that I have full control of what I promote, where I promote it, how I promote it, and whether I promote it at all. There's a huge difference between "here are all 20 banks that exists" and "here is an ad paid for by the bank".

by nicbou 2y ago

shanecleveland 2y ago

Perfectly said. Your readers do not have to use your website, they choose to. And they can choose to leave your website, and they can choose not to click on your affiliate links. When and ad comes on the radio, I can change the station. When an add comes on the TV, I can change the channel. I cannot force either one to not broadcast the ad to me and go back to normal programming.

nicbou 2y ago
That is fair. However my readers (and I) choose to keep using websites and getting things from creators, but strip them of their income. We expect everything to be free, but the quality content to keep coming. Oh and now it has to feed AI too. In that sense they're not leaving. They're consuming my work and occasionally even creating more work, and not giving anything in return. This is something I'm okay with. In my case it works that way by design. My website is meant to be a free resource. However in the absence of paying users, we're stuck with commercial patrons. Mine have no leverage, but that's very unusual.

culopatin 2y ago

So… ads. Except that you write them instead of showing a gif.

nicbou 2y ago
And that I have full control of what I promote, where I promote it, how I promote it, and whether I promote it at all. There's a huge difference between "here are all 20 banks that exists" and "here is an ad paid for by the bank".