Search Results for : monetiz

Monetizing Internet Content – Rokfin

I just heard about Rokfin as another example of an implementation of my idea for monetizing internet content.


Justify a subscription to more people at a higher price point and get paid for retaining other channel’s subscribers.

By pooling efforts with other relevant media companies, you’ll be able to reach a deeper audience with a broader package and keep your subscription base engaged during your “off-season.”

Maximize monetization of your content with tips and a subscription model. It is a way to opt out of the current system. More people join and tip because it’s one subscription for ALL premium content. Tips monetizes free live content.

Here are some examples that use Rokfin.

In searching for “monitiz” on my blog, I found more examples that I had forgotten about.

Why Does John Oliver Not Know How To Monetize Internet Content?

YouTube has the segment Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Journalism (HBO).
At the end of the segment, he complains that we have all gotten used to getting our news for free online, and we will not change.

If I could only get him to read my previous post Monetizing Internet Content – A Working Example he could start promoting solutions instead of just complaining about problems.

Monetizing Internet Content – A Working Example

A news story on WBZ-TV made it clear to me that there were already services in operation that had some similarity to the idea I have been pushing. See the previous post Monetizing Internet Content – One More Time.

I could not find the WBZ story on line to look up the services they mentioned, but it gave me the idea to search the web.

Infoq has the article How to Pay the Author: Flattr Micropayment Service.

Here is the video that the company, Flattr, has put up on YouTube.

Flattr is a revolutionary social micropayment system. This how it works. Visit us at

I also found references to Tiny Pass and a zillion others.

Monetizing Internet Content – One More Time

I read a complaint on Randy Katz’s Facebook page about a quality journal having a pay wall.  In reply, Randy said the following:

Why should quality content be free?

I posted the response below.

Quality content should not be free. Quality content providers should learn that the 21st century needs a completely different subscriber model from the 17th century, let alone the 20th.

When you only had access to a small number of publications, it was easier to decide which few you were going to pay to subscribe to.

Now that we all have access to 100s if not 1,000s of publications, the choice is not so easy. Any whole dollar subscription to each of 1,000s of sources would still be too expensive.

Google and all the ad selling web sites have the technology to make micro-payments to people who agree to host ads on their web sites. They could use this technology for subscribers to web sources. Why couldn’t Google or other site create a “Publisher’s Clearing House” of the web? You would pay one subscription fee to Google, and you would get access to 1,000s of sites. A micro-payment would be taken out of your subscription and paid to the source of whatever articles you actually read.

With this system the subscriber does not have to decide beforehand which publications are likely to have an article that he or she wants to read on any given day, week, month, or year. For a set fee, the reader can decide on the spur of the moment which source to read with the knowledge that the chosen source would get a fair payment.

When you use up your fee in micro-payments you replenish your subscription with some more money.

I am going to keep pushing this idea until someone finally takes up the challenge.  I think my last post on this topic was Monetizing Internet Content – Refresher Course.  It’s not so much a question of why people can’t think outside the box, but more of a question of why am I the only person who can think outside of this particular box?

Monetizing Internet Content – Refresher Course

My previous post Monetizing Internet Content provided an explanation of how someone or some company or some organization providing content on the internet could get paid for their effort without resorting to an individual paid subscription model.  I further explained why the traditional subscription model just does not fit with what is possible or desirable with today’s internet technology.

As for the technology to implement my suggestion, I said:

Google already is able to collect this kind of information as a way of extracting payments for the ads that it places on web pages.  It also shares some of this revenue with web sites on which it has placed the ads. It does the collecting and distributing on a per click basis.  If nobody clicks on your ad, you don’t pay and the web site doesn’t get paid.

Somebody just needs to turn it around and use it as a way to distribute subscription income.  There is not a far distance from what Google is already doing and my new idea.

I probably was not explicit enough on just what Google technology I meant. I as talking about Google AdSense.

Google AdSense provides a free, flexible way to earn money from your websites, mobile sites, and site search results with relevant and engaging ads.

AdSense has helped over two million partners grow their businesses in the last 10 years. Have AdSense fund your content so you can focus on creating even more.

The only small twist that is needed in this technology is to get Google to pay you for your content directly rather than for the ads they place on your website.  What’s in it for Google?  They would charge a reasonable subscription fee to  your potential readers.  In return Google would provide access to the content provider’s website (that means your web site).  Google would take a small fraction of the money the subscriber paid to Google, and pay it to you for each piece of content the subscriber viewed.  The actual details of what a “piece of content” and a “viewer access” means will have to be worked out.  I hope you can make the leap in your own mind to understanding the general idea I am talking about.

The difference between this way of doing business and the traditional subscription model is that Google is not selling you a subscription to a single source.  Google is selling you, the subscriber, access to all the sources that have signed up with Google to receive micropayments from Google for each view of their content.

Rather than the subscriber paying a monthly subscription of even one dollar per month to the thousands of sites the subscriber could potentially want to access, the user would pay one lump sum of maybe even $10 per month that would be divided up among the sources the viewer actually accessed that month, not the ones the subscriber could have potentially accessed.  Given that there are only so many hours in a day, there is only so much content that a subscriber could possibly access per day.

The content provider would get a fairly small micropayment for each access.  However, with the amount of readership that one could get via the internet, this could amount to enough money to pay you for the effort you expended to create the content.  You also wouldn’t have to waste your time begging people to chip in a little for the content you are providing.  This web site you are currently reading has  been read 1,482,673 times from 89,619 internet addresses over the seven or so years I have had it online.

The purveyor of this subscription service would need a way to direct subscribers to the content providers.  I imagine it would look something like this page.

If you can make any significant money with the AdSense plan from Google which depends on the number of people who access your web site, then you ought to be able to make money without the ads, but just because of the content you provide under my suggested plan.

I am going to continue to discuss this plan from time to time on this blog, until I finally come up with a way to explain the idea to some enterprising person who can make it happen.  I am not even charging for the idea.  Such a deal.  How can everybody resist?  Keep in mind that Google is making billions of dollars per year with the schemes they are already using.  You can wait until Google finally wakes up to this additional way of making money, or you can try to make your own billions with it.

Monetizing Internet Content

My recent post, Googled: The End of the World As We Know It, discusses the book that is in large part about how difficult a problem it is for news and other organizations to continue to get paid for the work they do in providing content.

A recent announcement by the Worcester T & G that they will attempt to charge for some of their content has spurred me to a new  realization.

When I pay a subscription fee for a hardcopy newspaper, magazine, or book, I try to make sure that I read enough of what I bought to get my money’s worth.  I know I have just so much time I can spend reading.  In the past, when I could match my available time to the content that I could reasonably afford and obtain, the trade-off wasn’t impossibly difficult.  It was also not too difficult to predict what I would want to pay to have access to.

The internet has changed the situation enormously.  I now have easy access to far more than I have the time to read.  I can no longer predict which sources I will want to read for which items now that I have the ability to find out what so many sources are writing about.

How much would I be willing to pay each source?  Would I spend $2 or $3 a month to each of the hundreds of sources I might tap?  How do I decide which of these sources to spread the $2 or $3 per month each that I could afford?  How would I keep track of all these subscriptions to renew the ones I wanted and to cancel the ones I no longer wanted?

So, I think that even a relatively low fee of $2 or $3 per month is not viable.

If an organization came along that would provide me access to a large number of these sources and charge me $10 or $20 a month, I might think about subscribing.  After the fee that the organization would take as its profit, it could distribute the rest of the money to the sources that provide the content.  They could make the payments proportionate to the amount of readership on a per eyeball pair per minute basis. (I do not know how to account for reading speed or information absorption speed.) This would spread the money around in a fair manner that I could not possibly accomplish on my own by trying to distribute my payments individually.  By fair, I mean fair to the content providers and fair to the content consumers.

Google already is able to collect this kind of information as a way of extracting payments for the ads that it places on web pages.  It also shares some of this revenue with web sites on which it has placed the ads. It does the collecting and distributing on a per click basis.  If nobody clicks on your ad, you don’t pay and the web site doesn’t get paid.

Somebody just needs to turn it around and use it as a way to distribute subscription income.  There is not a far distance from what Google is already doing and my new idea.

Add in to the mix the retail selling of intellectual property that iTunes and Amazon do, and you are not very far away from what I am suggesting.

How about Publisher’s Clearing House? This would be a natural business for them to enter if they didn’t define themselves so narrowly.

If someone else doesn’t wake up, Google will have a monopoly on this end of the business, too.

I have published this idea as a knol on Google.

March 26, 2011

Making the payments proportional to eyeball per minute is of course only one method of making payment. Some amount of research and thought will have to be given to exactly how to distribute the payments. For instance payments per page per click could easily be gamed by the content provider by breaking up articles into many small pages. On the other hand, a content provider that published a long detailed article would be unfairly penalized by getting paid the same amount per page as a publisher with many small articles. Some of these problems might be ameliorated by natural free market forces. The method of payment adopted ought to promote a fair distribution of payments, however difficult it is to decide on what is fair.

Mozilla partners with news subscription service Scroll to build an ad-free internet

The Verge has the article Mozilla partners with news subscription service Scroll to build an ad-free internet.

Scroll is an upcoming news subscription service that promises to let you read all your favorite news websites ad-free in exchange for a monthly fee.

I am glad to see this finally happening. I first suggested this idea in April 2010 in the post Monetizing Internet Content.

Other posts that I have made on this topic include the following.

  1. Why Does John Oliver Not Know How To Monetize Internet Content?
  2. Monetizing Internet Content – A Working Example
  3. Monetizing Internet Content – One More Time
  4. Monetizing Internet Content – Refresher Course

September 1, 2020

I have signed up for a trial subscription to Scroll. I think this could change the face of the internet in ways I have been advocating for quite a while. See my list of previous posts that is shown above. In that list, I have posts from as early as 2014.

The Locust Economy

Ribbonfarm has the article The Locust Economy.

The war between the 1% and 99% seems to play out with the 1% and the 90% collaborating to prey on the 9% in the middle — the Jeffersonian middle class.

The article is rather long, but I found the writing entertaining enough to keep me interested. It is also very educational.

Ironically, my sharing this post with you is participating in the locust horde.

I don’t want to be a locust on the internet. I keep promoting the idea of how people can defend themselves from locusts like me, but they don’t seem to catch on. Perhaps one day they will wake up to how things have to change. See my previous post Monetizing Internet Content – A Working Example.

Thanks to João Geada for sharing this locust article on his Facebook page.

Gaius Publius: Hillary, TPP, the World of Money, and the Center for American Progress

Naked Capitalism has the article Gaius Publius: Hillary, TPP, the World of Money, and the Center for American Progress. Here are a few of the shocking statements in the article. (I have left out the links that are in the excerpts in the original article. You’ll have to go to the article if you want to see them.)

  • Exxon is one of the largest owners of unmonetized methane (yet-to-be-fracked natural gas) in the country.
  • “Left-wing” support groups and think tanks like EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) and NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) strongly support (pdf) the “temporary” transition to natural gas as a bridge fuel.
  • By many reports both EDF and NRDC receive money in various ways, as well as advice, from the oil and gas industry and their advocates.

One of the most important — and “centrist” (code for “corporate-friendly”) — think tanks in the Democratic Party ecosystem is the Center for American Progress, or CAP. They do some good work, and their associated Web group, ThinkProgress, does excellent work. But when it comes time to put their “money” where Money’s mouth is — for example, to support cuts to Social Security and Medicare — CAP is on the anti-progressive side, and reliably so.

I was unaware of the influence of corporate money in some of these organizations. I feel played like a Tea Party member who didn’t realize that the Tea Party was invented and funded by the Koch brothers.

Translation of Obama’s Press Conference on Torture Report

The Daily Kos has published the Tom Tomorrow cartoon Press conference.

This Modern World cartoon

Warning: This cartoon is lampooning the press conference, it is not supporting what Obama said.

I repost this cartoon because I believe the cartoonist expressed what I think better than I ever could have.

The cartoonist has a subscription page, Sparky’s List, where you can help support the cartoonist.

Read my previous post Monetizing Internet Content – Refresher Course to see my suggestion for how authors on the internet could be paid for their efforts.