Scott Bieser Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 I listened to last Sunday's (1/20) podcast today and in the long discourse regarding the shitstorm over Stef's "$2 donation" lament on Facebook, he also lamented the 1-2% rate of money donors compared with podcast listeners. He compared them with the (presumably) much higher rate of donors among church-goers. As someone who is also an internet content-entrepreneur (I produce web-comics), I also tend to get a low rate of merchandise purchasers compared with readers, and it is quite frustrating. But Stefan should not feel particularly put-out, or think that his listeners are particularly cheap. That 1-2 percent is actually fairly typical for people using the free-content model on the Internet. The reasons for this could be a fit topic for a long discussion, but suffice to say that comparing donation rates to any Internet site with donations among church-goers is just not very apt. One reason for this is that in church, the majority of the donors are members of the congretation putting pocket-change or small bills in plates that are passed around during the service. In this environment there is a very strong tacit meat-space social pressure to chip in, which does not and cannot really exist for an Internet site. (Of course, a larger portion of the income churches generally receive come from a smaller group of deep-pocketed donors who usually gain some influence over church business in return for their generosity.) Also, church-goers usually believe that the Angry Sky Father is paying particularly close attention to them here, and may somehow punish them for not donating. Clearly, there is no equivalent impetus available for a purveyor of atheism. Which leaves Stef with the one impetus he did use in the podcast, the "put your money where your mouth is" argument. Yes, libertarians do often and loudly argue that "the market can solve the free-rider problem" and that "content-creators don't need intellectual property laws to earn an income." And, the low donation rate does seem to belie those arguments. It's a tricky thing, shaming thousands of strangers into being more generous, without alienating them. I hope he can find a solution, if for no other reason than I might want to use it in my own business. []
Arius Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 If a business is failing (or not succeeding to expectaion), don't blame the customers. It's not their fault.
Stephen C Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 There's no reason why a person should not feel what they feel. If they do then they do. If they do feel X then they should feel X.Like, if I say to someone that feels fear around ladybugs "You should not feel fear around ladybugs, they are harmless. They eat mites. They are kind of cute. Look, there's a pokemon modeled after a ladybug". That doesn't change the fact that the person does feel fear around ladybugs. I might not know why, and I might not feel fear around ladybugs, and I might not want them to feel fear around ladybugs. They do feel fear around ladybugs, isn't that proof that they should?Scott, that's an awesome Avatar picture. Did you draw it yourself?
Stephen C Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 If a business is failing (or not succeeding to expectaion), don't blame the customers. It's not their fault. Stef has put forward the same point himself. There is a podcast where he tells a caller that if you own a business you have to incentivize people to come in and shop. Going out in front of the store and yelling at people to come in, or grabbing them and pulling them into the store, or guilt tripping people will not lead to success for the store. In the future everyone will just stay the heck away from the store all together, so as to not have to deal with that store owner.
ribuck Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I think a 1% donation rate is enough to be counted as a success. If 1% of the people who look at a store window, or walk past a market stall, buy something then that's a reasonable response rate. A 1% click-through rate on an internet advertisement is considered a success. Podcast donations are not really comparable to church donations. For starters, a church has a limited capacity, so it must gear its business model to worthwhile donations from a substantial proportion of its "customers". A podcast, on the other hand, can potentially reach millions of people, which opens the door to business models based on smaller donations from a smaller proportion of a much larger group of potential donors. There are bloggers who are doing OK from Flattr buttons on their blogs. They might only get a few cents from each click, but Flattr aggregates the donations and makes a payment each month. Also, the marginal cost of a non-donor is very small with a podcast. If the listener is getting the podcast from your own server, there is of course a marginal cost. But if the listener is getting the podcast from YouTube, the marginal cost to the podcaster is near-enough zero. In this case, the extra listeners increase the reach of the podcast and increase the number of other listeners that it will attract, some of whom will donate. It's often said that the biggest economic problem in the internet age is obscurity. With a larger group of followers, additional income streams will open up. A large source of income for many churches is legacies. It might be worth encouraging people to leave something in their will. Many people, particularly those without children, have no use for their assets after they die and will be happy to leave them to a worthwhile cause. They just need a bit of encouragement. Of course it helps the churches that the average age of their congregation is quite high Finally, if a liberty-oriented website does not accept Bitcoin donations, it's hardly valid to complain about the costs associated with receiving small PayPal donations.
andyissemicool Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 All good points on this topic. Does anybody know if there is a large "DonationGate" thread up somewhere? I've been reading the Facebook and Youtube comments and I'm interested to see what the FDR community has to say about it.
Kody Palmer Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I don't even think Stef meant this whole thing to be taken so literally. if anything, I believe he was just kind of giving us a bit of what he goes through. He often does these things more just for biographical insight than to chide you cheapskates.
JohnDJasper Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I don't even think Stef meant this whole thing to be taken so literally. if anything, I believe he was just kind of giving us a bit of what he goes through. He often does these things more just for biographical insight than to chide you cheapskates. Cheapskate! I resemble that remark. If I had to actually pay fair market value to access Stef's books and podcasts, I would have to just move along and forego the benefits held within. Fortunately this model allows me to become educated in ways I didn't expect while making a significant monetary contribution over time. If I was still making £40K annually, I'd happily jump up to a higher amount but those days are long behind me.
Kody Palmer Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I personally haven't contributed a dime so if you resent (you put resembe but I am guessing you meant resent) I apologize. I too am a cheapskate. But with Stef's help I have learned to see that truth and cut through the B.S. which is why I will donate eventually when I achieve some more financial stability in my life. In the meantime I too am willing to be a cheapskate, only difference being I'll admit it.
Recommended Posts