Thank you for this. It's easy enough to pick out the faults of an idea, it is much more difficult to suggest alternatives. #5 is interesting to me as it is very novel. However, as b_b noted, I think it's going to be a tough sell to advertisers. They are going to want the profile of the people suffering their ads, and they aren't going to be too keen on the fact that the users with money are the ones that they aren't targeting. They probably also won't like that their ads in the light of something negative that should be avoided. The only ads I like on the web are those of the Deck Network. They are the only network that seems to have respect for their hosts and the host's users. #4 is out because I don't want to treat people like that. It's just not something I want to reflect on on my death bed. #3 seems to have some support and interest, and I can imagine positive implementations. My biggest qualm with the value added model is that it favors people with money. I want to reward the donation, but not the means of making it. More on that below. #2 is totally fine by me, but I don't think it will make enough on it's own. NPR gets a good chunk of its revenue outside of the pledge drives, and I suspect that we will need to couple straight donations with another revenue stream. #1 is a last resort IMO. I think the big reduction of the user base could be mitigated some if members could buy memberships for non-members easily. However, it would be critical to get the numbers right. The model makes a sort of contract with the users, and that contract limits flexibility further on down the line. Once we decide on #1, there is little chance of going back. Also, we have to give up our dreams for DvH or similar developments in that vein, of which we have a few. Reflecting on this, and the feedback on the experiment for the last few hours has given me a few ideas, all of which need more gestation. This is something that seems interesting to me at the moment: Take the bit model, and drop the withdrawal mechanism (and the need for bitcoin along with it), then mix it with #3. Consider that the donation ratio was stuck at 50/50 and the max of $1 per share remained. Badges to give, and other rewards[1] were earned based on the creds that were passed on to Hubski via your account. That is, when you donate via shares, 1/2 the money can go towards your rewards, and 1/2 will go towards other people to then be split between their rewards, and the people they share/circledot. On top of that, there would exist a 'just take my fucking money already' straight donation option. [1] I prefer most to have rewards that are apparent to the user only. Rewards I do like include: more styles, a personal TMI page, additional feeds, and things of that nature.
It's interesting to me that you reject 4 and 5 out of hand because "you don't like ads." I think most people don't like ads because they're intrusive, bandwidth-heavy and decrease your agency. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has made any effort to ask what sorts of ads people want and then go with it; it's always been about charging advertisers enough that it's worth annoying your userbase. The tides are shifting on this: Google had to mark their prices down by 20% this year because the effectiveness of Adwords has gone down substantially. The ad industry is going to experience some major changes soon and rather than say "there is no way this can ever be made palatable ever therefore we will refuse to even model it" it might be effective to examine a way to make a noxious something less noxious. You might even be able to license/sell such a system 3rd party. I also think it's worth noting that your reaction is to "things I think will work", not "ideas I think you should try." I'm not sure about the outcomes of any of these, but I think anything you learn from trying them teaches you more about paying for the site without losing your soul. Especially since you haven't learned your lesson. Micropayments are stupid and will kill your site. I don't want to see the intrinsic value of a post of mine, particularly when it comes down to "you just spent 20 minutes typing out 2 hours worth of reflections and it's worth less than a tenth of a cent." The very mechanics of your idea are telling me to fuck off and do something better with my time. Before you do anything else involving "payments" and "social interaction" read the Ariely book. It's not that you haven't figured out how to make it work, it's that perpetual motion violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
mk As a consumer, I prefer services which offer the option of ads or paying. Ideally a one-time payment, but unfortunately website cost is ongoing. If hubski really needed the money, as a consumer, I'd prefer to see the minimum ads required to pay for it, with an option to pay $n to remove ads, where n is the cost of my traffic (which shouldn't be more than $5–10/year). Just my preference.It's interesting to me that you reject 4 and 5 out of hand because "you don't like ads."
What I am suggesting aren't micropayments, I just explained them like they are, and that can and probably should be removed (this idea is still baking). That is, you give Hubski $10. We have the $10. No one else gets any portion of the $10. But now, in addition to the good feeling it gave you, you now have 1000 hubs. When you circledot something, you give 2 hubs to the author, and 2 hubs go towards your reward stream. When the author circledots something 1 hub goes to the author of the content they dug, and 1 hub goes towards their reward stream. No micropayment was ever made. Hubski spent the $10 on a pizza long before all the hubs rolled in. This is actually a straight donation mechanism, plus the value add, plus the bequething aspect of the experiment.Especially since you haven't learned your lesson. Micropayments are stupid and will kill your site. I don't want to see the intrinsic value of a post of mine, particularly when it comes down to "you just spent 20 minutes typing out 2 hours worth of reflections and it's worth less than a tenth of a cent." The very mechanics of your idea are telling me to fuck off and do something better with my time.
You donated to the site, and that supports us. Don't mistake me, these are just my thoughts as of this morning. This needs to bounce around. I simply see it as taking the two positives from the experiment that I see: 1) people feel more selective about their sharing, and 2) good content creators without cash can be a part of the donation reward mechanism; and it removes the bad that comes along with spreading bits of cash about.
That's just it, though - Money elicits powerful emotions as a motivator. As a point of commerce people recognize that some things aren't free. This is why people generally gripe about but put up with ads - they recognize that websites have to make money somehow but that's just the cost of doing business. When you tie the money to their behavior on the site, their behavior becomes transactional in nature, not conversational. You can't afford me on a transactional basis. You can't afford anyone. You recognize this by allowing me to buy "boops" or whatever heinous word we're using but not requiring them, which just shows your passive-aggressive desire to make them matter but recognizes your fear in forcing them to matter.
If it helps your reflection, I would personally be fine with (and would participate in, if needed) #5, #2 and #1.