| |||||||||||
Restricted content the right idea ?Restricted content the right idea ?Posted Aug 1, 2002 14:50 UTC (Thu) by pspinler (subscriber, #2922)Parent article: Is it really The End?
Instead, I advocate using a voluntary 'pledge' model similar to public radio or public tv, where subscribers are asked to pledge whatever amount they can afford. As far as I know, this funding model hasn't been used yet in an internet publication, but is proven to work for other media. Here's how it can work: as another poster suggested in the last status update, put a "doom-o-meter" on the front page saying how long you can continue to operate. As long as the amount of money you have exceeds a set threshold, content continues to be free. On the other hand, if the "doom-o-meter" falls below some set value, perhaps 1 or 2 months funds, then and only then redirect non-subscribers and non-current subscribers to a pledge page, and put a big 'help support LWN' ad in the middle of the content for the rest of us. I think this is the best of all worlds, your readers know the health of the publication automatically, non-subscribers are chivvied up for cash whenever needed, subscribers only pay what they think your content is worth, and you continue to get the free, open, and widespread exposure needed to keep growing your readership and subscriber base. Again like public radio/tv, sponsoring companies can support you in the form of subscriber contribution matches, which can be used to encourage more subscribers. Also, please support an option of contributing a smaller set amount every month, rather than one big chunk. I can much more easily afford $10 or $20 a month than $120 or $200 at a go. -- Pat
(Log in to post comments)
Reduction in staff Posted Aug 1, 2002 16:14 UTC (Thu) by George2 (guest, #3049) [Link] It appears clear from where I am typing that LWN needs to face up to the necessity of a significant reduction in staff.If you cannot meet expenses then you have to cut expenses - if you wish, in some fashion, to survive. E.g. - when the excellent Storage Review site faced folding, one of it's two staff members found other work. A sadness for everyone, it is true - and the site is no longer everything that once it was. Financially, I would guess that the fellow who left was probably much better off than the fellow who stayed. It is not as if you would be financially hurting anyone by letting them go - far from it. You would probably be doing them a favour by letting them out gracefully. But at least then the site would still up and running and still serving the greater community. Sometimes half a loaf is better than none. Good luck, George2
|
|||||||||||