A Possible Donation Model For Stef's Youtube Subscribers

[AnCap AllCaps]

This was in response to a long discussion on this topic in the video below; and Stef said that something like 4% of subscribers donate. Stef currently has around 150,000 subscribers.

 

So consider the following type of donation model:

 

Donations would be done in "rounds." Let's consider a "monthly round." So in January, a "poll" of sorts would be sent to EACH of the subscribers. The poll would ask several questions about "under what scenario would you donate, and how much would you donate for this month?" If you agree to any of the donation options, you provide your paypal info.

 

1. I would donate $1 if 95% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $1.

2. I would donate $1 if 70% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $1.

3. I would donate $5 if 95% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $5.

4. I would donate $5 if 70% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $5.

5. I would donate $10 if 95% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $10.

6. I would donate $10 if 70% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $10.

7. And so on.

 

----

 

So the rounds could be conducted weekly, monthly, quarterly, bi-annually, annualy...

 

And the idea would be to "get subscribers to pressure others" to donate, but just by the display of the voluntary action. And there could be an intersting monitor of the data, so that it would be evident all over either this site, or Stef's videos, THE PERCENTAGE OF SUBSCRIBERS THAT HAVE ALREADY AGREED to a certain goal.

 

So let's consider just goal #1 on the poll, the $1 95% donation level. If 61% of subs had ALREADY AGREED TO GOAL 1, you could see this, and FEEL THE PRESSURE TO ACHIEVE that goal of 95% and lend yourself to the critical mass. And you could see ALL OF THE DATA, so you could ALSO SEE that the #6 goal, the $10 70% goal was at 45%, and the data would ALSO SHOW that this would result in (  ($10 from each sub) * (70%) * (150,000 subscribers)  ) = $(10)(.07)(150,000) = $1,050,000.

 

And those dollar amounts MAY GO ON TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE to join.

 

Tell me what you think. Add some ideas or objections please.

 

 

 

[RyanT]

Just out of interest sumpm, have you donated yet?

[dsayers]

And the idea would be to "get subscribers to pressure others" to donate

 

I can't say for sure since it was before my time, but I think that's what the forum donator badges are for. We already know that people are more likely to do something if they see others doing it.

 

Personally, I don't like the idea myself. Either the show has value for person X or it does not. If it does, that person should be reciprocating value for the sake of justice. This could mean discussing these topics with others at the dinner table, sharing videos, or actually contributing money.

 

Since it is a philosophy show, it makes more sense I think to make the case for returning value than it would be to set up a convoluted conditional pledge system. In fact, while I'm not much of an economics guy, the case being made for returning value has actually altered the way I see a lot of things. In other words, I've received tremendous value from the act of the case for returning value being made.

[Wesley]

I think the point that Stef has recently brought up sure had something to do with a pitch about why donating to the show was a good things to do, but the main point to me was to bring to light the series of statements:

 

"FDR changed my life for the better, but I choose not to reciprocate in any way."

"FDR completely changed my life, I now am 1,000x better than I was, so here is $2."

"I have listened to hundreds of hours of podcasts and YouTube videos, and at least a decent amount of entertainment for those hundreds of hours and thought-provoking ideas has come out of it, so here is $2"

 

 

People spend like $10 for a 2-3 hour movie, so you would think that several times that in podcasts each month would net at least that.

 

It certainly shows some gap in the idea of reciprocity. Within the bounds of what people can afford, of course, people should tend to donate what value the show has to them. All of those examples show a very large amount of value gained from the show in compared to the amount given in exchange.

 

There is not much that is said about the person who stumbles on the show and doesn't donate anything, as the value they have gained is rather small, but people should be aware of a gap in statements like "you saved my life, here is $2".

 

People might agree to "die roll donating" like this, but I would think it would be much better for people to be able to actually evaluate how much value they have gained for the show, and provide some reasonably comparable reciprocity for it, whether it is through donations, sharing of videos, helping Michael out with volunteer tasks, or anything else that would help the show. That is different for everyone, but as far as what I see on the boards and what I hear in the call-in shows, I would think it would be a few notches higher than it currently is at the least.

 

 

Thus, I would ask you, sumpm1, if you have donated or not (as it looks like you have not) and then to ask yourself why not rather than trying to come up with convoluted ways in which Stef would be satisfied with you not donating. This is much more about the individual and self knowledge than about the actual income of FDR, in my opinion at least.

 

For, if the goal were to maximize the profits of FDR, as was discussed, things could have various changes in content and revenue in order to easily accomplish that. However, maximum profits is not the goal.

[AnCap AllCaps]

Just out of interest sumpm, have you donated yet?

 

Yes, I have donated. My little brother and I donate together under his paypal account. He and I have a deal, we discuss donations, and we match each other's donations.

 

And to those that think that this model could possibly TAKE SOMETHING AWAY from the meaningfulness to the individual when  donating, how would a person be LIMITED by this model? If a person wants to give more, that is an option, they are not restrained, in fact, each "objection" that you propose may be an option. For example:

 

Option:

 

8: I receive far more value than only the $10 mark, and have and will donate more than this. And I have also agreed to the $10 %70 mark of option 6.

 

9. I have no money to donate, but I would be willing to volunteer time to help with tasks.

 

10. I totally disagree with this "donation poll" system.

 

11. I would not even donate $.00001 to this system.

 

12. Add your own option or opinion or objection and it will be shared with others, and the data will reflect how people responded to your position in the poll data.

 

13. I choose not to participate in this donation system or round.

 

----

 

1. If a person was planning on giving $10, but then sees that "Currently only 5% or less of subscribers are GIVING AT ALL, and that the difference between you giving $10 and 70% giving $10 (or whatever options are proposed), IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE, it may encourage them or others to help push for this larger goal.

 

2. This could be "the foot in the door" for the 95% of non-donators. Perhaps their FIRST DONATION is only option 1 or 2 and it results in a $1 donation from people THAT WERE NOT EVEN CONSIDERING DONATING. 1 week later they think "I pay $10 for a 2 hour movie, that $1 donation makes me feel cheap, here is another $10." And they are now more of the mind of a donater.

 

3. How could you call the system "unfair?" If you don't agree, you either do not participate, or you choose or add an option that represents you; you may choose an option that is in objection to the system and everyone will be able to see that data for future "rounds of donations" or may lead to abandoning the system.

[Songbirdo]

If you don't mind sharing, what convinced you to donate that first time? What was the pitch or argument that made you and your brother say "We should donate."?

[MMX2010]

 

And to those that think that this model could possibly TAKE SOMETHING AWAY from the meaningfulness to the individual when  donating, how would a person be LIMITED by this model?

They are limited because their decision to donate (or not) is determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people. 

 

As in, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." 

[JamesP]

Why play these games? If people find the show valuable and want the message to continue, they should donate. If they don't, it's a burden on their conscience.

[AnCap AllCaps]

They are limited because their decision to donate (or not) is determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people. 

 

As in, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." 

 

That does not LIMIT the person! They are still free to donate like usual, the way they do now! How is that TAKING AWAY the current option?

Why play these games? If people find the show valuable and want the message to continue, they should donate. If they don't, it's a burden on their conscience.

 

You could ask the question: "Why play these games? Why Stef repeatedly ask for donations? Why put donation request banners? Why spend minutes on the topic of donations? Why come up with clever or thoughtful ways to explain WHY donations are the virtuous move? Why..."

 

The answer: "To increase donations."

 

I think that is why there is "donation talk."

 

And it is just a thought, a consideration on how we could shake things up. And if donations were FLYING IN, then I don't think the topic of donations would be upon us.

 

So all of these "why questions" seem silly. Because we need donations to improve. Duh. And also "How can we get subscribers TO BE MOTIVATED to donate?" ONE WAY is Stef goes on a rant. I think he has done that several times. So HOW ELSE can we get subscribers motivated? "Have subscribers apply pressure to each other in creative ways that do not require an ounce of effort (barely, just showing a ticker) from the subscriber, and that requires NO DISCUSSION."

 

So if you listen to 10 hours of content a month, and 10% of the show time is currently spent on talking about "donations," and instead the "donation talk" could be minimized, then it is possible that subscribers could gain 1 hour of content.

 

But asking "why try?" sounds retarded.

 

It is analogous to owning a restaraunt, trying to come up with clever marketing and sales promotions, and then the cashier employee asking "Why have sales, give coupons and flyers and commercials, why put up a sign, why give away free samples...??? If they want to eat our food they will just come in and order, and if they dislike our food, they won't come in, the food speaks for itself, either they want to eat it or they don't, why all these clever tactics, jeez."

 

It really does seem that silly to me.

[AnCap AllCaps]

If you don't mind sharing, what convinced you to donate that first time? What was the pitch or argument that made you and your brother say "We should donate."?

 

Simple, I loved the show, and listened to the first couple hundred podcasts, got my brother to start watching and listening and discussing philosophy. And it became SUCH a big part of our lives and how we looked at things and made decisions, that we said "HOW CAN WE NOT DONATE?" haha

 

So he and I were GUNG HO on this show. I'm sure your donation success rate will be high with subscribers of THAT TYPE. But what percentage is of that type? Maybe 5%?

[Songbirdo]

I do not fit into that gung-ho category. 

 

For the longest time I had the notion that "Well, if this idea that important you should be giving it away for free so that it is more accessible. And in doing so your idea could change the world. But, by charging for it, you just creating a hurdle most won't pony up for to sample" and Stef was doing the former, giving it away for free. But I didn't connect that I was also spouting the other side to myself: "Well, since you're giving it away for free, I don't have any obligation or reason to give you financial support."

 

The conscious-twinging aspect is what finally did it for me: "Your sub-conscious pays attention to what you do, not what you say. If you want your sub-conscious to actualize that this thing you've been spending time on called 'Philosophy' is important, you should commit some of your resources to help it grow. You obviously think it's important because you've come this far in the podcasts expending all this time listening to them and learning the material. Since you can afford to commit some cash to it, pony up." or something to that effect.

 

It just clicked after hearing that argument.

[MMX2010]

sumpm1, "And to those that think that this model could possibly TAKE SOMETHING AWAY from the meaningfulness to the individual when  donating, how would a person be LIMITED by this model?"

 

MMX, "They are limited because their decision to donate (or not) is determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people. As in, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." 

 

 

That does not LIMIT the person! They are still free to donate like usual, the way they do now! How is that TAKING AWAY the current option?

 

MMX:  Using a donation model which states, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." automatically causes every individual's moral principles about donation to be determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people.  And this is automatically and fundamentally limiting. 

 

------------------------------------

 

 

 

sumpm1, "You could ask the question: "Why play these games? Why Stef repeatedly ask for donations? Why put donation request banners? Why spend minutes on the topic of donations? Why come up with clever or thoughtful ways to explain WHY donations are the virtuous move? Why..."

 

The answer: "To increase donations."

 

I think that is why there is "donation talk."

 

 

MMX: Is "to increase donations" the only possible answer to the question?  (Because I don't think it is.)  And has Stef said that the answer to the question is "to increase donations"?  (Because I don't think he has.) 

 

So, based on the above, wouldn't you be forcing a certain conclusion onto everyone else?

[AnCap AllCaps]

MMX:  Using a donation model which states, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." automatically causes every individual's moral principles about donation to be determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people.  And this is automatically and fundamentally limiting...

 

 

 

I totally disagree. AGREEING to a condition is not BEING FORCED or limiting. If I agree to give $10, but then want to donate another hundred, WHAT LIMITS ME from doing so? So where do you see the "fundamental limitation?"

 

Reading a poll DOES NOT FORCE you to do anything. You could ignore the poll. Or you could choose an option or create an option that is unlike any of the others. So if options 1-10 bother you can create an 11th option that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

 

 

 

MMX: Is "to increase donations" the only possible answer to the question?  (Because I don't think it is.)  And has Stef said that the answer to the question is "to increase donations"?  (Because I don't think he has.) 

 

So, based on the above, wouldn't you be forcing a certain conclusion onto everyone else?

 

 

 

Where is the "force" applied? At what step is a person "forced" to do anything? I am confused.

 

And is "increasing donations" the ONLY answer? Of course not, that is silly. BUT WHY do you think that Stef mentions donations???? Because THERE IS AN EXCESS of donations? Does Stef ever come on and say "We have way too much money to handle this week, please stop donating so quickly?"

 

In the early podcasts, Stef would say "I haven't had a donation in X days..." or "The donations are pretty dry, let's pick it up..."

 

So to the question "Why does Stef advertise the fact that donations would be appreciated or that donations are welcome?" I think the OBVIOUS ANSWER IS "Because donations are lacking and an increase in donations is preferred." Or "The show will do better with more donations rather than less of course."

 

To the question "Why should someone donate to the show?" Has personal meaning, and is a totally different type of question, so that is up to the donater. But in general a person WOULD DONATE for the reason that THEY FIND VALUE in the show and trade value for value.

 

But again, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE you see the act of FORCE occurring in a poll? If I say "Yeah IF 30 people donate $10, so will I..." How does that FORCE someone to do anything? Because I don't see any use of force and actually very far from it.

[Carl Green]

sumpm1,

 

This could be an additional donation model right?

 

Maybe people think you're saying it should replace the subscription model. Or are you?

[MMX2010]

And is "increasing donations" the ONLY answer? Of course not, that is silly. BUT WHY do you think that Stef mentions donations???? Because THERE IS AN EXCESS of donations? Does Stef ever come on and say "We have way too much money to handle this week, please stop donating so quickly?"

 

In the early podcasts, Stef would say "I haven't had a donation in X days..." or "The donations are pretty dry, let's pick it up..."

 

So to the question "Why does Stef advertise the fact that donations would be appreciated or that donations are welcome?" I think the OBVIOUS ANSWER IS "Because donations are lacking and an increase in donations is preferred." Or "The show will do better with more donations rather than less of course."

 

Have you read Real Time Relationships? 

 

I ask because I accept that "the most obvious answer" you cited is, indeed, the most obvious answer.  But it's not necessarily the right answer, and it contradicts what Stef has said in his podcasts and written about in Real Time Relationships. 

 

He has said, in his podcasts, that he asks for donations because of what Songbirdo said earlier, "Your sub-conscious pays attention to what you do, not what you say. If you want your sub-conscious to actualize that this thing you've been spending time on called 'Philosophy' is important, you should commit some of your resources to help it grow. You obviously think it's important because you've come this far in the podcasts expending all this time listening to them and learning the material. Since you can afford to commit some cash to it, pony up."

 

And he has written, in Real Time Relationships, that honesty involves telling people what you feel in the moment, without trying to force them to take any form of action. 

[AnCap AllCaps]

sumpm1,

 

This could be an additional donation model right?

 

Maybe people think you're saying it should replace the subscription model. Or are you?

 

That is correct. Thank you for noticing that; perhaps someont thought I meant "to replace" the current donation model, but I do not. This would be in addition to the existing model. Yeah I don't know why anyone would want to ELIMINATE the current donation model; or any avenue for donations.

 

 

...he asks for donations because... Your sub-conscious pays attention to what...

 

I understand. That is why I highlighted the difference between the two questions.

 

1. Why insert a mention of advertisement? (Obviously to get some donations, hence more donations.)

 

2. What is a good reason for a donater to cite as his "personal reasoning for donating" this type of show? (This is personal and will obviously vary, but one good exampe of a reason is: ...because... Your sub-conscious pays attention to what... as Stef has mentioned often.)