running electric cables to sockets in PIR boards

[JohnW2]

Well, yes advertising is probably going to remain part of the mix .... i know places like the guardian go for a combination of adverts and donations. .... So a whole business model can't be ruled out on the basis of a couple of failures when there are successes out there too.

Agreed. However, so long as advertising remains part of the mix, widespread deployment of ad-blocking software would undermine that, and therefore force a move towards alternative sources of revenue.

In some cases (maybe like the Guardian), there may be reasons (e.g. 'political') in addition to purely commercial ones for their existence, so it's not impossible that some of the sites would even be prepared to run at a financial loss if they had to.

Also, there will be a lot of variation between sites as to what their true marginal cost is. In the case of newspapers and other news media, they are primarily just making available via a website material which largely already exists in electronic form, so the infrastructure and human resources required may not be as great as one might think.

If I may ask (and if you're prepared to answer!), have you ever made a voluntary donation/contribution to a website and, if so, do you do it 'regularly'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

In some cases (maybe like the Guardian), there may be reasons (e.g. 'political') in addition to purely commercial ones for their existence, so it's not impossible that some of the sites would even be prepared to run at a financial loss if they had to.

I know the guardian in particular has a large investment fund so they can lose a lot, but it seems they were losing double or triple that until recently. Perhaps that was the motivation behind the contributions system.

In the case of newspapers and other news media, they are primarily just making available via a website material which largely already exists in electronic form, so the infrastructure and human resources required may not be as great as one might think

I doubt it already exists, most of their content seems to be pretty much bespoke for them, i rarely see a story that's just regurgitated from an agency.
On the other side, a forum like this and wikipedia, the content is almost exclusively from the users.

If I may ask (and if you're prepared to answer!), have you ever made a voluntary donation/contribution to a website and, if so, do you do it 'regularly'?

Yes I've made various one off contributions to sites and I'd be happy to do so here, assuming they asked in a reasonable way.
If you do a bit of research on line you can find that the guardian has hundreds of thousands of contributors, but hundred of millions of readers. even if they all pay 5 pounds a month that's a good chunk, but still a small radio. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...igital-revenues-outstrip-print-for-first-time Wikipedia seem to be more about one off funding drives and less information available online, but I'd agree their marginal cost would be lower due to not needing big London offices and large salaried staff.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I know the guardian in particular has a large investment fund so they can lose a lot, but it seems they were losing double or triple that until recently. Perhaps that was the motivation behind the contributions system.

I contribute to them every day by buying a printout of their website.

 

[JohnW2]

Newspapers are, indeed, a rather special case - since they represent one of the very few cases in which the alternative to looking at a website (for free) is to pay for 'a printout of the website'. However, even in the case of newspapers, the proportion of people buying such a 'printout' is diminishing, so that source of revenue is also decreasing.

 

[John D v2.0]

Agree, but I'm not sure what point we were trying to get to the bottom of. You seemed unconvinced that a website such as this would receive a useful amount of contributions therefore advertising was the price we had to pay for using it.
I believe it could work although it would depend on things being set up right.

 

[JohnW2]

Agree, but I'm not sure what point we were trying to get to the bottom of. You seemed unconvinced that a website such as this would receive a useful amount of contributions therefore advertising was the price we had to pay for using it. I believe it could work although it would depend on things being set up right.

I agree, and there would be no harm in trying. The cost of setting up the machinery for collecting donations would probably be fairly trivial, so the worst-case outcome would be that it wouldn't produce much net revenue.

The main reason I'm a bit doubtful is that (as I've said before in relation to {non-voluntary} subscriptions), I imagine that many people are in the same position as me in having some involvement with dozens of websites, so would be hesitant to make meaningful contributions to all of them!

Another interesting issue is than many sites (partially true of this one) have many members who 'ask questions' and a relatively small number who answer them. In such cases, would it necessarily be reasonable to 'expect' donations from those who provide (without charge) their time and knowledge/expertise in order to answer questions?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Adverts per se, are a nuisance, but not the real problem.

It's the tracking and profiling I don't want.

MOD this thread has gone off topic, if you wish there is a general disussion forum.