> That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work.
Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers. With ad-supported content on social media, you need to count your audience in tens or hundreds of thousands if you want to make more than $20 per month.
> 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content.
Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example.
It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for. $50 per year is cheap for a local newspaper, for example. Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it.
> All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods.
Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant. But if the result is on a screen instead of on a plate, suddenly the creator doesn't deserve to get paid. Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood.
> Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations.
Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times. Websites that were huge in user base and impact, getting maybe a couple of hundred dollars per month in donations, while the user base is counted in millions. Or sites giving away great stuff for free for years and then started asking for payment. Do you think anybody is grateful for the years of free content? No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations.
Those still there and asking for donations and selling merch are those who didn't move on. Individual paywalls are hard because most creators aren't that technical to be able to set it up. That's why I think paywalls work better as an umbrella service.
> and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.
They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?
>Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers.
You seriously think that people are going to pay you without already knowing what you put out? The only people that can get by with paywalling everything already had a following when the content became paywalled. People don't have infinite money to throw at random strangers, so unless you have a hell of a marketing campaign for your indie blog/youtube channel/whatever nobody is going to pay.
> Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example . . . It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for.
Wow, rude. Also Curiosity stream is a terrible example because most of those documentaries are older than the streaming service itself, and are available for free on their official youtube channels. Its only benefit is that it congregates the content into one space.
>Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it.
Hyperbole. Look, if you are so uninvolved with your community that you need a local newspaper to spoon-feed you what is happening in your own back yard, that is entirely on you. I have never paid for a local newspaper, but because I spend a lot of time in my community, both doing volunteer work and talking with neighbors, I don't need one. If their payment models are so outdated that they cannot stay in business, that is on them. I have no moral obligation to give them money, and neither do you.
>Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant.
IDK about you but I don't go to restaurants unless they offer some unique product. Most people that value money, including myself, eat at home because restaurants are usually a fat waste of money. Just because they are putting in effort does not mean they deserve my money. Thats a logical fallacy.
>Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood.
You seem to completely misunderstand the donation model. It is an extension of the "base is free, extras are more" payment model that has fans pay more. Its not charity. It is a transaction for people who truly love the content and can afford the extra money. Want behind the scenes footage? Extra episodes of your favorite podcast? Go to Patreon and unlock them for whatever amount a month.
>Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times.
Thats on them for not finding a monetization model that works for them.
>No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations.
While name calling is wrong, I agree, it is not the consumer's responsibility to keep a business afloat. If they want donations, like I said earlier, they need to provide incentives to do so. There are plenty of ways to do this depending on the business.
>They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?
"If they don't have money, why should I care about them?" See, that's the classist attitude I was talking about the other day. For one, consumers only consume content. Its in the name. Payment is entirely coincidental. Other payment models that are not paywalled service everybody. Have an animation series that is popular with kids? Most people wouldn't pay for it, but around Christmastime when bonuses come in, even the completely destitute will buy at least something for their family around that time. There is a reason merch works for the most popular content creators.
It seems to me that #1, you assume consumers have infinite money for infinite streaming services, and that if they don't it is because they don't want it hard enough. And #2, don't seem to understand that effort is not equal to deserving money, especially during times like now when inflation is out of control and few people are willing to spend. And #3, that somehow paywalls make content less spammy and higher quality. None of these are true. Just look at Locals, Substack, Medium, and people that use Patreon to paywall ALL of their content...you will never see content that is lower quality.
Paywalls are one of the least industrious, most outdated, and ineffectual models possible. Unless you have lots of money to magically throw around, its terrible for the consumer and alternatives are superior.
> "If they don't have money, why should I care about them?" See, that's the classist attitude I was talking about the other day.
No, it is "If they don't want to pay me anything, why should I work for free for them?" - because you don't want to acknowledge that an actual person has to do hard work to create things.
> It seems to me that #1, you assume consumers have infinite money for infinite streaming services, and that if they don't it is because they don't want it hard enough.
Nobody has infinite money, and even if they did, they don't have infinite time to spend on consuming content. But there are an infinite amount of consumers, for all intents and purposes, so everybody who produces something good should be ideally be able to find enough paying consumers to continue with their craft. There are niches, simply. But yes, every person has to prioritize and budget how they spend their money, what they want most and what they can skip.
> effort is not equal to deserving money
If what they produce is so bad that they don't deserve getting reimbursed for it, why do you insist that people should have access to it for free? It's like going to the restaurant and saying that the food is so disgusting that I won't pay for it, but please can I have it for free I really want it and hey why are you locking me out?
> You seriously think that people are going to pay you without already knowing what you put out?
That's not how it works. Trials, snippets, limited content is how it works. Depending entirely on what you sell. Word of mouth, etc.
> Wow, rude. Also Curiosity stream is a terrible example because most of those documentaries are older than the streaming service itself, and are available for free on their official youtube channels. Its only benefit is that it congregates the content into one space.
I wasn't intending to be rude. You wrote that there had to be "a looooot" of content behind a paywall for it to be worth paying, so I understood it as that quantity was of more importance than quality. If Curiosity Stream is a terrible example, let me ask you if there is any paid example that you consider good value at all?
> Look, if you are so uninvolved with your community that you need a local newspaper to spoon-feed you what is happening in your own back yard, that is entirely on you.
Good journalism is way better than gossip, because they actually go and interview the people involved, and make room for a more open discussion. But not everybody is interested, not everybody has to be.
> Paywalls are one of the least industrious, most outdated, and ineffectual models possible. Unless you have lots of money to magically throw around, its terrible for the consumer and alternatives are superior.
Paywalls are the only sustainable way forward for creators, but they should be better packaged to benefit both seller and buyer better. Subscription fatigue is real and creators would benefit to team up under umbrellas, so that there is plenty for the consumer within the subscription, and plenty of consumers interested in paying. So instead of convincing 1000 subscribers to pay you $5 each, you'll team up with 9 other creators and have 100 000 subscribers paying $5 each for the umbrella subscription.
Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers. With ad-supported content on social media, you need to count your audience in tens or hundreds of thousands if you want to make more than $20 per month.
> 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content.
Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example.
It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for. $50 per year is cheap for a local newspaper, for example. Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it.
> All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods.
Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant. But if the result is on a screen instead of on a plate, suddenly the creator doesn't deserve to get paid. Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood.
> Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations.
Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times. Websites that were huge in user base and impact, getting maybe a couple of hundred dollars per month in donations, while the user base is counted in millions. Or sites giving away great stuff for free for years and then started asking for payment. Do you think anybody is grateful for the years of free content? No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations.
Those still there and asking for donations and selling merch are those who didn't move on. Individual paywalls are hard because most creators aren't that technical to be able to set it up. That's why I think paywalls work better as an umbrella service.
> and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.
They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?