Exactly!
nostr:naddr1qqyrqwp4xsmnsvtxqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823cex8903
Discussion
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.