Donate to Team Acephalous . . .

. . . because I like money. 

I read Waxbanks' post on Jason Kottke's decision to ask his readers to become "micropatrons."  His chutzpah earned him points for bravado and derision for hubris from the MeFi community.  So I started thinking about thresholds.  Do I provide $0.25 worth of enjoyment monthly?  $1.00?  $10.00?  Kottke's plan to quit his job and "work" on his blog full-time failed in part because he set his threshold at $30.  That's brazen times n^STUPID.   

Thinking about this seriously, I wonder whether this economic model could work.  For example, the average graduate student in English has to supplement his or her income in a variety of ethically unsavory ways—tutoring children of wealth so that they score even higher on standardized tests foremost among them.  Could that income be replaced by being interesting? 

Imagine you and my 700 or so other daily visitors each donated $0.25 a month.  That'd equal some number someone who can multiply would label a "reasonable supplemental income."  Suppose they each donated $0.50.   That'd triple that already reasonable supplemental income by two.  All for less than it'd cost you to have Coinstar turn that change into money.  I'd wager most people only enthusiastically read $5 or $6 worth of blogs per month.  This system would create a furious competition among bloggers to generate interesting and original content.

The readers would reap the rewards of their generosity and create a feedback loop.  As bloggers became more interesting they would earn more money, which would in turn force them to be even more interesting, lest they lose the audience they have.  Influence could be measured by donations and popular linkdumps like Instapundit would suffer the fate of all uninteresting portals:

Oblivion.

My actual investment in this idea comes from my research for that article I'm writing and/or panel I'm a part of.  I've been thinking about the cost of individual subscriptions to Project Muse and JSTOR and the OED—in particular, about the inability of independent scholars to access the resources most of us in academia take for granted.  If we take seriously the argument that academic blogs signal the breakdown between "formal" and "informal" contributions to our collective knowledge, then we need to find some legal way to afford "informal" contributors the same access to academic archives that we "formal" sorts have.  I can think of a number of scholars whose work I think important enough to contribute a third of a cup of coffee a month to allow them such access.  The thing is, the same stigma dogging the panhandler hounds the blogger who explicitly asks for contributions. 

The only way this system could work is if it became standard practice.  I'm not sure how that would happen.  But in the meantime,  did I mention I like money?

Comments

[bitchphd]

The problem is, if it became standard practice, we'd all be shuttling the same ten bucks (or whatever) back and forth to each other all the time. It would be kind of like a giant pyramid scheme, or something.

[David R. Block]

Or I would have to play benefactor and I can't afford to support that many people.

YIKES!!

[Porlock Junior]

An appealing idea; and after all, there are blog readers who are themselves non-bloggers or post so rarely that they might as well be, and they would be a source of net income to the blogosphere; or, of course, they could choose to be cheapskates and cads.

But did I miss, or did you omit, the grubby technical details? A good system of on-line micropayments is badly needed and has been for years, but where will it come from? Not that no one has tried, but I can't recall any of them getting anywhere.

[Adam Kotsko]

The Paypal tax would kill this scheme.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Dr. B., I'm not sure that's true. As Porlock Jr. notes, there's a real distinction between bloggers and commenters, esp. at the bigger blogs. I know a lot of my readers don't have their own blogs, or have ones I don't read regularly (too many blogs, too little time), and which I therefore wouldn't donate to. I think if everyone were upfront about it, no one would consider bloggers crass for it. I mean, I'd donate $0.25 to you, and you (may) donate $0.25 to me, but think about all those blogless commenters who would do it too; some of the more prominent bloggers would shuttle pennies back and forth, but the rest of the commenters would generate pure "profit." I think you should try this: you're prominent enough that I bet you could make a couple hundred a month if you wanted without anyone casting a leery eye at you. (And, of course, you should link to me if you do, since I love traffic.)

David, you need only support the best, and when you wanted to. Forsake that cup of coffee man! You could help clothe a dishevelled scholar.

Porlock Jr., I'm thinking nothing more complicated than the Paypal "Donate" button or its TypePad equivalent. For many bloggers, it'd be a way of formalizing what they've already done with the donate buttons they've already installed on their sites. Speaking of which...

That said, I think this could be a way to improve content. I know I'd work a little harder if I felt a responsibility to entertain.

[Adam Roberts]

How could I be sure that my donated money wouldn't be used directly to fund split infinitives? Eh? Eh? What guarantees could you give me? Eh?

[Courtney]

I think it would just be shuttled back and forth as well because everyone reads eachothers blogs so they would be paid for people reading their blogs, but then would be paying that money right back out to read others blogs. Because even if they were the top blog and everyone was paying them they would read everyone elses blog to see what there competitiion is.

[Brendan]

Sorry I'm a little late here, but "taxing" people to read your/one's blog is oh so very left wing and inefficient!

What one has simply gotta do is stay free to air and advertise!