4 ms·

Contenture Launches. Micropayment-Based Freemium Model

21 points by vaksel 17y ago

zain 17y ago
Contenture has made it very simple for a site to install and use their service — it’s just a small snippet of JavaScript that can turn on or off features based on if a user visiting the site has a Contenture account. Disabling features with Javascript? I bet it's easy to write a Greasemonkey script that'll give you the paid features on all these sites.
- wmf 17y ago
  It's in the FAQ: http://contenture.com/help/#technical http://contenture.com/help/#technical "Only a very, very small minority of users would ever attempt to do something like this, and worrying about these users is a waste of your time and your money. There will always be those people who will do literally anything they can to get around paying for something."
  - Scriptor 17y ago
    They do seem to have an API that's server-side accessible, but otherwise I wouldn't trust reassurances from the same company that is trying to sell me the product. At least, not without some valid data.
- schammy 17y ago
  Yes, we have a backend API for people concerned about this. The tracking code that you copy/paste also contains inline javascript directly on the site that detects if the tracking code has been blocked, so sites can program in logic for that as well. We really do think worrying about these users is a waste of your time though. Just like blocking ads, if you want to try to get something for nothing, you can. Lastly, sites don't even have to enable any of the premium features. They are optional. Contenture is as much about users supporting sites that they enjoy as it is about enabling premium features on your site. Because everyone knows ads don't even pay the hosting bill. If you don't want to pay - that's your decision.
bkudria 17y ago
Any new micropayments venture must (to me) justify in detail in the first sentence how their idea solves the fundamental problems surrounding micropayments. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think it's just another gimmick. Micropayments suddenly turn your casual users into customers, even for 2 cents, and the nature of the relationship drastically changes. Keep casual readers is one thing, retaining customers is a much larger problem. I have yet to see a micropayments scheme that addresses this.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  They do aggregation.
- schammy 17y ago
  To us, the fundamental problem with micropayments is that they're a pain in the ass. Your flow is interrupted every time you have to authorize a 5 cent charge to view a piece of content. This doesn't work, never will. Contenture's system is fully automated. You pay a small monthly fee of 5.99 (which the sites get 80% of), and we automatically distribute that money to the sites you visit based on how often you visit them. While there are drawbacks to this sytem, certainly, we feel the advantage of a fully automated system vastly outweights any of that.
gojomo 17y ago
Love this concept -- been discussing variants of it for years now, great to see it finally being done. But, it needs a catchier name. This needs to be something subscribers are proud of paying for -- something they can easily blog and talk about. 'Contenture' is a tricky -- and tricky-sounding -- word. And it could benefit from more readable and understandable entry pages -- plus different ones for publishers and subscribers. (I'm seeing tiny faint grey text, and neither 'Learn More' nor 'Register Now' really answers the questions I need to take the next step.) And it would really help to have one or more named participating publishers at launch.
patio11 17y ago
I'm still wondering why any site capable of making the sale of Contenture would put it on their site. (It makes more sense for sites which can't make the sale. Pennies from heaven, what is not to like.) Step #1: Convince my user to pay $6 a month forever to use my website (and by the way a bunch of other sites which are not relevant to them). Step #2: Receive $1, once, from Contenture, plus a fraction of $4.80, assuming I keep them coming back to my site. I have an alternative freemium model proposal: #1: Convince users to pay $6 a month for my site. #2: I receive, hmm, $5.50 a month or so, depending on my credit card processor.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  I think the point is that you can probably convince your heavy users to buy contenture, i.e. the ones who get $6 of value from your site every month. But what about users who get only $0.50 of value from it for a month or two? You'll never get them to pull out a cc for $0.50. However, if they already signed up for contenture, you still get your $0.50.
- gojomo 17y ago
  The power is in numbers -- the warm fuzzies users get when they see that many of the sites they visit will thank them (with tiny upgrades) for freeing the sites from total dependency on ads. So no, it won't be one site making the sale. One site plants the seed of the idea, then another waters it a little, and another some more, until finally the user feels a gush of appreciation and/or need for one of the tiny upgrades. Then every site gets a proportional cut, from that point on. Even if none of them alone can make the $6/month sale, in toto they can. And they earn microslices of the subscription fee even for first-time visitors who already signed on elsewhere. In fact, unless your site is already charging some sort of subscription fee, there's no reason not to sign up. Just by adding the tracking code, you start receiving a tiny slice of any Contenture visitors' payments. You don't have to convert users yourself or run banners or lock content up (as far as I can tell; I haven't parsed all their fine print). Sure, there's a risk of gaming and free-riding in this regard -- but that helps bootstrap the publisher network, and they can tighten things based on user feedback over time. (If I were running it, I would give all users an absolute right to reallocate their $6 arbitrarily -- the passive metrics would only create the default allocation.)
madair 17y ago
Companies are still naming themselves in faux-latin? This is not a troll. It's a criticism.

21 points by vaksel 17y ago

zain 17y ago

Contenture has made it very simple for a site to install and use their service — it’s just a small snippet of JavaScript that can turn on or off features based on if a user visiting the site has a Contenture account. Disabling features with Javascript? I bet it's easy to write a Greasemonkey script that'll give you the paid features on all these sites.

wmf 17y ago
It's in the FAQ: http://contenture.com/help/#technical http://contenture.com/help/#technical "Only a very, very small minority of users would ever attempt to do something like this, and worrying about these users is a waste of your time and your money. There will always be those people who will do literally anything they can to get around paying for something."
- Scriptor 17y ago
  They do seem to have an API that's server-side accessible, but otherwise I wouldn't trust reassurances from the same company that is trying to sell me the product. At least, not without some valid data.
schammy 17y ago
Yes, we have a backend API for people concerned about this. The tracking code that you copy/paste also contains inline javascript directly on the site that detects if the tracking code has been blocked, so sites can program in logic for that as well. We really do think worrying about these users is a waste of your time though. Just like blocking ads, if you want to try to get something for nothing, you can. Lastly, sites don't even have to enable any of the premium features. They are optional. Contenture is as much about users supporting sites that they enjoy as it is about enabling premium features on your site. Because everyone knows ads don't even pay the hosting bill. If you don't want to pay - that's your decision.

bkudria 17y ago

Any new micropayments venture must (to me) justify in detail in the first sentence how their idea solves the fundamental problems surrounding micropayments. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think it's just another gimmick. Micropayments suddenly turn your casual users into customers, even for 2 cents, and the nature of the relationship drastically changes. Keep casual readers is one thing, retaining customers is a much larger problem. I have yet to see a micropayments scheme that addresses this.

ivankirigin 17y ago
They do aggregation.
schammy 17y ago
To us, the fundamental problem with micropayments is that they're a pain in the ass. Your flow is interrupted every time you have to authorize a 5 cent charge to view a piece of content. This doesn't work, never will. Contenture's system is fully automated. You pay a small monthly fee of 5.99 (which the sites get 80% of), and we automatically distribute that money to the sites you visit based on how often you visit them. While there are drawbacks to this sytem, certainly, we feel the advantage of a fully automated system vastly outweights any of that.

gojomo 17y ago

Love this concept -- been discussing variants of it for years now, great to see it finally being done. But, it needs a catchier name. This needs to be something subscribers are proud of paying for -- something they can easily blog and talk about. 'Contenture' is a tricky -- and tricky-sounding -- word. And it could benefit from more readable and understandable entry pages -- plus different ones for publishers and subscribers. (I'm seeing tiny faint grey text, and neither 'Learn More' nor 'Register Now' really answers the questions I need to take the next step.) And it would really help to have one or more named participating publishers at launch.

patio11 17y ago

I'm still wondering why any site capable of making the sale of Contenture would put it on their site. (It makes more sense for sites which can't make the sale. Pennies from heaven, what is not to like.) Step #1: Convince my user to pay $6 a month forever to use my website (and by the way a bunch of other sites which are not relevant to them). Step #2: Receive $1, once, from Contenture, plus a fraction of $4.80, assuming I keep them coming back to my site. I have an alternative freemium model proposal: #1: Convince users to pay $6 a month for my site. #2: I receive, hmm, $5.50 a month or so, depending on my credit card processor.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I think the point is that you can probably convince your heavy users to buy contenture, i.e. the ones who get $6 of value from your site every month. But what about users who get only $0.50 of value from it for a month or two? You'll never get them to pull out a cc for $0.50. However, if they already signed up for contenture, you still get your $0.50.
gojomo 17y ago
The power is in numbers -- the warm fuzzies users get when they see that many of the sites they visit will thank them (with tiny upgrades) for freeing the sites from total dependency on ads. So no, it won't be one site making the sale. One site plants the seed of the idea, then another waters it a little, and another some more, until finally the user feels a gush of appreciation and/or need for one of the tiny upgrades. Then every site gets a proportional cut, from that point on. Even if none of them alone can make the $6/month sale, in toto they can. And they earn microslices of the subscription fee even for first-time visitors who already signed on elsewhere. In fact, unless your site is already charging some sort of subscription fee, there's no reason not to sign up. Just by adding the tracking code, you start receiving a tiny slice of any Contenture visitors' payments. You don't have to convert users yourself or run banners or lock content up (as far as I can tell; I haven't parsed all their fine print). Sure, there's a risk of gaming and free-riding in this regard -- but that helps bootstrap the publisher network, and they can tighten things based on user feedback over time. (If I were running it, I would give all users an absolute right to reallocate their $6 arbitrarily -- the passive metrics would only create the default allocation.)

madair 17y ago

Companies are still naming themselves in faux-latin? This is not a troll. It's a criticism.