People who don't like #value4value... 
Discussion
Quite the dilemma... many people don't want/understand the responsibility of conscientiousness. I'm still quietly advocating for suggested pricing/open content when the opportunity arises. Like now š
I believe that is essentially the same idea as v4v, or at least very similar. The alternative is restricted access and paywalls.
Exactly... v4v with an expressed expectation. I think it's the missing key. Or a reteaching mechanism. Or a transitional step.
Do you imagine this on an "a la carte" basis, or more as a package or "bulk" deal? In other words, is an "expressed expectation" per piece of content better? Or is something more like a Patreon or Geyser page the way to go, where you define levels of support on a recurring basis? Perhaps a combination of both?
From a consumer standpoint, I think per piece is the way to go. I might enjoy one video & think another is awful. I may only watch one ever but find value in it. Good content generates more income, not everything is a hit. Seeing a lower payout from a piece *should* incentive the creator to analyze their work a little closer. Subscriptions can provide a free pass for laziness.
But really there is a place for both. A decent full time creator will have a dedicated fanbase that will offer recurring support. Having a way to express expected payback per piece in addition would also incentivize subscribers to give a little extra for stuff they really like.
Being able to set a suggested target value per piece also makes it viable for someone who is not seeking to make content creation a career but wants to do it sometimes, to maybe see results from their work.
Good points. I think probably having a few options available makes sense. Some people will not want to pay anything. Some will want to pay per piece of content. Some (a much smaller %) will actually want to support your work on an ongoing basis. Have you heard the idea of a "crowd wall?" You attach a price/threshold after which the content is unlocked/published for everyone, and from there people can still tip extra if they want but it's freely available for consumption. For me personally, that may be the only time I'd want to attach a specific "expectation" to something I post. There are times when you create something and you don't think it's worth all that much, but you're surprised to find out that others do and you get tipped/paid more for it than you would have ever valued it. And there are times when you overvalue something you've made, and nobody else thinks it's worth anywhere near what you think it is š¤£ And it's not necessarily anything you can objectively say why the difference exists. Such is the nature of art, I think.
šÆ More options, the better. People will gravitate towards what works for them & what doesn't will fade. The crowd funded paywall idea is great too, especially for high level creation and well established creators.
I know the idea of pricing your own work is weird but that's simply self-employment. The whole system needs to be torn apart & rebuild for v4v to gain traction including how the creator approaches their income. Aside from losing the algorithm advertising, per view payments are gone too. There's no shame in saying "this took me an hour, and my time is valuable" basically... peptalk š
šÆ Artists need to learn to value their work and time, especially if they're trying to make a business of their craft, and they shouldn't be shy about doing so. Nothing wrong with putting a price tag on your work.
this is how it works in a market
seller makes an offer
sales are good or shit
price is adjusted, promotions are made
sales are hopefully better
donation model, so called v4v does not work
you set a price, people feel more secure, and if your price is too low, you get bad sales as well btw
it's a guessing game that you can't cheat around with wishy washy socialist fantasies
Goods in a market are not infinitely reproducible for little to zero cost. Digital content is. V4V is not viable in all use cases. Neither are fixed prices and paywalls.
V4V is the LEAST socialist. It can literally cut out governments altogether. It's the original free market, long before central banking, it circumvents tyrannical taxing. Instead of money, you can offer services, artwork, reciprocating product. Don't just limit your thinking to "they pay me what they want". Even before language we, as animals, exchanged sex for meat, survival for cooperation, shelter for fruit, etc. Then we exchanged chickens for dental work, hides for weapons, and so forth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_second-price_auction
Vickrey auction FTW
the problem with v4v is that most people don't want to spend brain power to figure out what is "fair" which is very subjective to begin with.
Exactly!
nostr:naddr1qqyrqwp4xsmnsvtxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cex8903
Now do the problems with paywalls and subscriptions.
What are the problems with that? Besides that I certainly don't like the idea of starting a subscription with email and password and credit card just to read some crappy news article from a retarded journalist.
I think the biggest problem is the reliance on the "subscription" model which is only the norm because of the chunkiness, limitations and transaction costs of the credit card world.
Is there anyone who subscribes to the New York Times website or something like that?
I don't even subscribe to Bitcoin Magazine
however I will support them through donations and if in the future they required small sat payments to read an article, I would be down for that.
I have the same feeling. A subscription is a very high commitment.
And it's expensive because you're getting a huge ton of (mostly bad) written content. I mean, they feel they're giving you a lot but you'll never be able to read all that (and you shouldn't).
However I subscribe to https://martyrmade.substack.com/ (and pay with Bitcoin) because the content I get is very high quality, very dense.
Talking about digital/online content specifically, paywalls and subscriptions are limited in effectiveness and for most creators probably do more harm than good. It is an attempt to artificially limit something that is not limited (digital information). Most people won't pay, and many will look for ways around paywalls or simply find the same info elsewhere for free. People who are going to pay to support your work will pay anyway. By locking your content away behind a paywall you greatly limit its reach to primarily those people who already know and like your work. Then there is also the problem of the traditional payment methods you mention, which is even more limiting on top of being invasive to privacy. Many people in the world couldn't pay for that content even if they wanted to because of lack of ability. But if it's otherwise freely available to them they might want to check it out, and they might even like it enough to share it along to someone who may want to pay you something for it. If it's good enough it's going to get shared anyway with or without your permission. Why not place yourself in a better position to benefit from it being freely accessible? Subscriptions and paywalls don't do this.
The fact that even my Netflix and Disney Plus subscriptions have added advertisements even though I'm still paying for them should say something about the effectiveness of subscriptions in monetizing content. These are large companies with vast resources and able to implement sophisticated DRM and sue people, and yet they still need to implement advertising on paying subscribers to make it worthwhile? Sounds broken.
Correct
I don't disagree with anything you said.
But my preferred solution is not to sell content, but to sell something else. It could be t-shirts but I think selling some form of digital "service" or nontransferable good (like a badge of premium supporter or membership in a closed place or even the right to have your message printed on the screen of someone else or your question answered) work better.
However I think the simple donation or the full-on paywall could also work depending on the case. I just don't like the term "value4value" because it makes no sense to me, or the push for everybody to just do it and not do anything else.
I think the concept of v4v has been abused and misused on nostr, so maybe that's a fair response to the term. I believe the idea/approach holds a lot of merit, but I also believe it is not necessarily the sole model for any creator trying to monetize. But rather, I see it as being one of many potential revenue streams. It's suitable for some things, and not for others.