You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] alphabeta [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I don't know exactly how their income breaks down but in 2013 Business Insider did an article where then-CEO Wong said that they were still in the red despite their 70 million monthly readers. And both ads and gold were a thing at the time. Article here.

I don't have exact figures but I think we need to get creative about supporting ourselves.

0
1

[–] boat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, simple and direct individual donations are pretty much the most ideal funding method from the economic perspective of perverse incentives. That is, I think they are the most stable, long-term way to fund a source of information without corrupting its objectivity.

When we look at something like Wikipedia, the donation model just works. Despite their being internal problems such as edit wars, the site has had quite a long lifespan, and has become one of the most valuable pieces of infrastructure in our information economy.

The problem with the Wikipedia donation model, is that the viewers are periodically subjected to an annoying banner of Jimmy Wales face. But suppose instead of intermittent fundraising, there was continual fundraising, continuously displayed in an un-obnoxious manner via multiple progress bars. Similar to the reddit Gold meter, but perhaps with multiple meters measuring the daily, monthly, and yearly funding progress. I'd have a tough time believing that the Voat would be unable to collect sufficient revenue to cover operating costs and their salaries via such a strategy.

That said, if the owners of Voat do not want to go the Wikipedia non-profit route and rely solely on donations, but instead wish to go the commercial venture capital route and attract investors for a big exit, that is certainly their right as owners.

0
1

[–] alphabeta [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think that relying on individual donations would be ideal, but do you think the site can run only on donations if it has a huge year? Look at the statistics post from 12 days ago. I linked to it in my edit. Voat has experienced a substantial growth spurt in recent months and that's very likely to continue with all the reddit drama.

The admin who compiled those stats, @Atko actually mentioned the possibility of doing a kickstarter to boost donations, which I think would be a great idea to get the ball rolling and see where we're at!

I do like your idea too of different graphs for Voat gold. It would be a lot more motivational to see how going over in donations for one day would impact the month's or year's goals.

My one concern is that, while it is ideal for keeping things not corrupt, can the site survive a huge influx of new users with only gold & donations? Yishan seemed to say that reddit couldn't keep up and they have ads and sponsored posts.