Sat 15 May 2010
Innovation is the Sincerest Form of Flattry
Posted by anaglyph under Blogging, Cow Matters, Pirate, Technology, Web Politics
[11] Comments
You will remember that some time back I was musing about the exploration of models for earning income in the new media paradigm.
At that time I installed the Collection Plate, to the right there in the sidebar, just to see whether visitors could even be bothered to flick a virtual coin my way when they found something on The Cow that they liked. Well, it’s been a mixed response. As I might have guessed, the click count was proportionately high toward the beginning and has now tapered off. Even factoring in King Willy’s irritating clicking frenzy in the early days, I can see that there was interest when it was a fresh idea, but has now settled into a predictable low-level trickle. Not surprising really.
As of today the plate has collected 860 coins – if we assume that people might have dropped in 5c a hit, that’s a grand sum of 43 bucks in 3 months. It’s obvious that I’m not headed off to the Maldives anytime soon. Still, my readership is small (if entirely faithful) so those figures are obviously dependent upon traffic – it’s not bad for someone who’s busking in a back alley on a cloudy day.
When I installed the Collection Plate, you may recall that I mentioned, somewhere during the discussion, a concept called Flattr – a micropayment ‘sharing’ system being set up by Peter Sunde, one of the Creators of Pirate Bay. Well, I was recently invited to join the Flattr beta project and you will infer by the Flattr icon underneath the Collection Plate over to the side there, that I have accepted a role in the Flattr experiment.
This is how Flattr is supposed to work:
First of all, you need a Flattr account. Currently these are given by invitation only, but the idea is that when Flattr is launched, anyone can get an account just by signing up. When you have your account, you decide how much money per month you’d like to spend to ‘Flattr’ people who you visit on the web. This money goes into your Flattr account – you can’t get it back. Then, over the month, the amount of money you decide upon – say five dollars (or Euros, as it is at the moment) is divided up by the number of times you click on Flattr buttons you encounter while traipsing around the intertubes. That amount of money then goes into each Flattr account you clicked on. In other words, if you only click one Flattr button on one site, that site gets the whole five bucks. If you click on two Flattr buttons, each site gets $2.50. And so forth. If you don’t click on any Flattr buttons, all your monthly allowance goes to a charity.
I’m giving Flattr a try, but I have numerous reservations about its concept. Let me elaborate:
•Straight off the bat, when I activated my Flattr account I was asked to nominate an amount of money I wanted to spend to Flattr people each month. This is too damn tricky, I think. I simply don’t know what kind of a figure I think is reasonable to spend on my internet travels. Heck, mostly I get my stuff for free right now – why should I pay? I don’t think I’m the only one that will ask that question. This idea is too much like subscription models that have already shown to be less than effective on the internet. And a big difference is that with subscriptions you know in advance what you’re getting, and can make an assessment of whether it’s good value. ((I suppose that you can always treat your Flattr account as a hypothetical donation to charity from the get-go – which it kind of is.))
•Right from the first time I heard the concept vaunted I could see a huge drawback: Flattr must break a critical user barrier before it’s got a hope in hell of working. If Flattr buttons were everywhere, and you saw them on YouTube and Wikis and Forums and so forth, then I think you’d be inclined to join up, if for no other reason than to get a chance at a slice of the pie for yourself. But for now, the very first thing you realise after you put some money in your Flattr distribution account is that there are not many people out there that you want to Flattr. Well, sure, for the novelty you’re likely to chuck a few coins in wherever you see a Flattr button, but the idea is that you reward people who are doing great stuff, not just exchange coins with everyone else in your club.
We can see the problem here of course – Flattr needs to be ubiquitous to get the system working, but the system has to be working for Flattr to be ubiquitous. It’s an unenviable conundrum. Can Flattr pull itself up by its own bootstraps? I’m doubtful.
•You can’t proportionately award good stuff more Flattr points the more you like it. Flattr will only let you click on one unique button once a month. I think this is a problem. I understand the egalitarian idea behind sharing revenue ‘fairly’ among places that I visit, but let’s face it, I want to be able to decide that if I like someone a lot, I can click on their button three or four times to reflect that. I’ve hit this stumbling block already – I’ve visited a few sites that are linked off Flattr and, well, they’re OK, but do I really want to give them my coin? If I plonk my click down on one site, then I am under pressure to find another site just so site #1 doesn’t get my whole month’s allowance. There’s something that I find instinctively wrong about that concept.
•You can’t see (as far as I can tell) who has Flattred you. This is probably not something that would be ultimately relevant, but while Flattr is new I think it’s quite important. If someone Flattrs you, you instinctively want to see what they do also. It’s like when someone leaves a comment on The Cow – mostly I will pay their link a courtesy visit to see exactly what it is they’re about, and if I like it, I might even stay. I believe this sense of community is vital in a scheme like Flattr, at least in the early stages. (It occurs to me that it’s also a very good way of finding out exactly who actually even has an account on Flattr, since the only people who can Flattr you are Flattr users). And related to that:
•To even get a leg-up, you need to have Flattr users come visit you. I don’t see how I’m going to get this to happen unless I actively solicit visitors to The Cow. Once again, this may not be as much of a problem if Flattr becomes widespread, but for the moment it is a stumbling block. You can see how many people have Flattred me by the count on the Flattr icon. Right now it’s zero and I expect it will remain that way for some time.
How do I get you guys to join up with Flattr, so that you can Flattr me? Why, according to the Flattr website, I tell them to! So – how many of you are heading across to Flattr right now to get an account? Right, I thought so.
So, there are my thoughts on the Flattr mattr. As I said in my original article, these things interest me so I’m all for some experimentation, but I really don’t hold high hopes for Flattr. I aim to stick with it for a few months – let’s see how we go.
ADDENDUM: I thought of another instability just now. Flattr exists as a kind of community contribution idea – I Flattr you, you Flattr Gilbert, he Flattrs me, what goes around comes around. But exploitation of the system would arise very fast. Let’s say I post something on my site that really gets people’s attention. They all Flattr me, and not only that, I get quite famous, with lots of readers and a nice Flattr income. There is no incentive for me to care about belonging to the Flattr community, as such, any longer. I can reduce my Flattr contribution to the minimum allowable and just let it go to charity every month. Meanwhile I’m doing very nicely out of a constant Flattr revenue stream. I’m not suggesting this would happen a lot, but there would definitely be Mega Flattr sites that are sucking it in rather than giving it up.
Another thing that occurs to me is that knowing how much people are being Flattred is likely to influence how much they get Flattred. If I see someone with lots of Flattrs I’m likely to think – oh well, they’re doing OK, I’ll save my click for someone else. I think this could be ameliorated slightly by having the number of Flattrs NOT displayed on your icon. It may well be that doing this might counteract the situation I mentioned above.
Hmm yes, I get all that you’re saying, have I signed up… No.
I wonder whether a more likely way would be a small fee added by the ISP that tracks which sites you visit most and distributes a small reward percentage. For example if everyone in the world’s internet access went up by say 20 cents a month that would make a big difference. Of course in an unregulated system like we have it would probably just be abused and simply become another tax.
I dunno, all I can offer are the right royal feasts you enjoy when visiting the castle as well as the nubian slave girl component.
The $ing
I need to work on something called Fattr . . I take some of that cake
The cake is a lie.
Step One: Change Stupd name.
It all sounds very jolly but they seem to have forgotten that they’re dealing with a whole new generation that expects online content for free. Call me cynical but I don’t think people will respond.
And the logo is crap.
I think Flattr is great.
Weere talkin about chickns, right?
Prhaps Malach spoke off th cuff,
About workin on FATTR and stuff.
His pics let us see,
Indisputably,
He’s workd on it fucking enough.
King Willy: I’m content with the feasts and the Nubians.
Malach: You should also sign up for Smartr.
Atlas: Everything is a lie in Portal.
Universal Head: Um, yes, I believe I asked the question ‘Why should you pay?’ in my first reservation, above. And, as I said, I don’t hold a great deal of hope for the Flattr idea either. But I’m not close-minded about it – I want to see what happens. If we don’t try these kinds of things, then we get no information about the landscape at all. It serves no point to grumpily say ‘no-one will pay for content’ if you’re basing your view on the fact that they’ve never had any reasonable option to do so.
I have to add also that the ‘whole new generation’ that you talk about does in fact pay money for stuff if it’s presented in the right way. Apple’s phenomenal success with iTunes is indisputable evidence of that. iTunes is not kept afloat just by the ‘old generation’ who pays. Part of the reason for its success is that iTunes has a reasonable payment scale – most people are happy to pay a dollar for a song. I predicted that about ten years before iTunes came along. Other voluntary payment schemes such as shareware also work quite well – there are numerous examples of people who’ve made a substantial living out of selling software on that model.
My feeling is that people will pay a little bit if things are presented in the correct way. As I said in my long discussion on this previously, for situations like blogs, or videos or online commentary I believe a ‘tipping’ or ‘coin in the hat’ system is a better way to go. The problem with that is one of implementation – the technical challenges are immense. I know this would work for me – I often see things in my net travels that I would quite happily tip for, if it was as easy as throwing a coin in a cup. Flattr simply has too many steps of complication, and requires too much of the user.
Sir Joey: When I launch my system it will be called ‘Chickn Flattr.’
OK, buffet to the head taken! My apologies, the comment was made off the cuff rather than after long considered thought – but the “I don’t think people will respond” was made in response to the Flattr system, which is paying upfront.
As such there’s a bit of a difference with iTunes etc. When buying music, people are paying for content they can keep, that they have to buy to get (conveniently and legally); we’re talking about people being given the option to give money for content like blog articles that they are already receiving for free. I wonder if human nature is such that people will give when given the option *not* to do so. I seem to remember that when Radiohead released their album online with a ‘pay what you think it’s worth’ system it didn’t work out so well. Well enough for a band already hugely successful with millions of fans worldwide of course.
I’m still amazed that there are people who talk in cinemas and drop litter without a thought … I wonder how many people would ‘do the right thing’ when given the option?
I believe that a system will arise that will look after itself. As I’ve said previously on this topic, if you’re selling something, and your competition is offering a similar or even better product for free, then why would you pay for it? I wouldn’t. But if it becomes plain that people can only spend a decent amount of time and effort on something if they are doing it full time, and that they need to get some kind of compensation for that, then I believe people will pay. There are already examples of this – you can buy free WordPress templates and they are for the most part pretty decent. But there are some truly excellent WordPress themes out there that you have to pay for which are WAY better than anything you’ll get for free. That’s not surprising – the people who make them put a whole lot more work into their code than someone who’s just doing it as a hobby.
We have to detach ourselves from current concepts of economy – I think they will disappear on the web almost entirely. The Radiohead example you gave is a good one – they did not make as much out of that idea as they might have made out of a conventional album release, but here’s the critical thing – maybe those days are over. The old model of record companies and physical product was artificially inflated and now the air is going out. In the days just gone, a few people made a LOT of money out of their music. Maybe in the future a greater number of people will make moderate money out of their music – we have so MUCH product now, a lot of it really good, and there is only so much money to go around. Makes a lot more sense to me to make the product cheaper. The fact is, the product is being made anyway and you don’t need a record company mechanism to get it.
In all of this, the way I judge it is to ask myself ‘What would I do?’. I am happy to pay for music, or for a DVD or a book. But I’ve thought for many years that these things are overpriced. How many times have you been to see a movie, for example and regretted the $15 you paid? You were sucked in by the whole machinery of that movie – not just the product itself. You regret paying the $15 because it wasn’t worth $15! BUT – when you see a movie that you really like, then you are happy to pay that money. Now imagine a scenario where there are a LOT more movies that are worth paying, oh, $5 for. That’s where we’re headed. The really good $15 movies will still exist too, but the real crap will get weeded out because it’s not foisted on you by someone with vested interests.
Lest you think ‘Oh that will never happen!’ it already is. With software. Just look at the Apple iPhone App store. What a phenomenal success – and much of the software is bloody good. Spectacular, even. And people are really happy to pay 3 or 4 dollars for it because that’s what they perceive it to be worth. And rubbishy software gets rated and dies very quickly.
It occurs to me that Apple are really the ones to watch with all this stuff. They have a good grasp on both sides of the problem – the artistic side and the commercial side. I think other megaliths like Google are still struggling with this problem. They want to make everything ‘free’ but can’t think of a way to make that model work – because, ultimately, it can’t. Google supports their framework with advertising but that’s already getting annoying. If I have the choice between something I have to pay a few cents for, and enduring advertising, I’ll pay a few cents.
And when it comes to paying for blog articles, it’s very simple – if it’s worth a few cents, people will pay a few cents. I’ve often read something on the web and thought ‘Hear! Hear!’ and would have happily dropped a dollar in the hat. I believe a LOT of people will do that if it’s as easy as fishing a coin out of your pocket.
Anyway, we shall see. The experiment is the thing at the moment. There are no rules. It’s still the Wild West, and there is still gold in them thar hills!
Indeed, very interesting articles all around. This one more specifically so. I believe there is a very large disconnect right now in the various economies of the world (internet, physical, art/media, etc). Think back ten years, before ebay, before amazon. If you wanted something, you would most likely have to go get it, and along the way you would see other things. Maybe a newspaper, maybe a coffeshop, maybe a bookstore. Now think back another ten years, when Anime was mostly in Japan, when Germany and America made the best computers, and all that. Now I can jump on Newegg, Bestbuy, Pricewatch, or whatever, and just order it. I don’t see the magazine on the stand. I don’t see the candybar. I don’t get change. I don’t pop a quarter in the gumball machine. I might see adverts, but they are off to the side and not central to my goal, so I ignore them. I can google or ebay search an item, and in about 15 seconds, find the same thing cheaper elsewhere. In the real world, travelling from Radio Shack to Walmart to Bestbuy to other stores to look for that computer is arduous and lacks the variety of the internet. Walmart doesn’t show anything but what they sell, nor do most places, but the internet does, and it does it all (mostly) for free.
Call me nostalgic, but I like to go to the local music store, or comic book store, or market, or whatever, and just look around. This fundamental disconnect from the sales clerk, the fitting room, etc, is what we are moving towards. A CD doesn’t have DRM (or it is easily cracked), but iTunes music does. Then again, youtube is free and you can pull any video from their site. Torrent sites are on the rise, like Pirate Bay. But this is nothing like a bootlegged copy of a game on CD or floppy from 10 years ago, or a dubbed copy of a VHS movie. This is the internet. PS3 has DRM that prevents moving the movies you purchased legally for download to your new ps3 when your old one dies, but if you buy the DVD for cheaper, or just torrent it, you can play it anywhere.
And now we have all this social media, social networking, social advertising, search engine optimization, new-age internetz voodoo, and it is a treacherous slope. And with the fall of net neutrality sure to hit here eventually, the game will be further screwed up.
In short, Flattr seems like a misguided Paypal Donate button that doesn’t quite understand all this newfangled stuff, and is like an old person trying to understand the new kids, and not doing so well. Like a hedge-fund manager trying to run a bank. Like the Brown’s football coach trying to dance ballet. It isn’t pretty, but it is the natural flow, and it will be weeded out.
Sorry for the lengthy post.
No need to apologize for long posts here onThe Cow! We like meaty discussions.
As far as Flattr is concerned, I think that their heart is in the right place, but the model is fundamentally flawed. If you want people to tip (because this is what Flattr basically is – a tipping mechnism) it has to be REALLY easy. As easy as flipping a coin into a cup. Then we might have a chance of making it a working model. But as it is currently it’s so easy to see the problems that I suspect it won’t last for more than a few months. We’ll revisit it in time.