Best Of

@Linc said:
The only thing that seems even remotely sustainable is a member-funded effort, where readers contribute money for a "subscription" (for already-public content) or just the joy of knowing they're keeping the thing they enjoy alive. But what does that transaction look like?

Patreon. A number of content creators I enjoy make some or all of their living off it (Zak George, Jeph Jacques & Jupiter Broadcasting to name a few), but it's still a new thing and still getting traction.

@CB said:
but no one wanted to pay for actual journalism, or even real opinion pieces.

And this is really part two of the same rant: the online financial model.

When Apple recently allowed ad blockers onto its platform, you'd think the Internet was ending from the media coverage it got. Suddenly everyone had a thinkpiece™ on whether the online economy was about to crash. To which I say, who cares? Did you seriously not see it was already a dumpster fire when you have to trick people into clicking your shit? The entire CPM economy has always been bankrupt; let's not ever pretend otherwise.

But what then is the answer, if there even is one? That's the question that has consumed me for years. How the heck can you fund a site like Icrontic, or hell, any newspaper (digital or print) that doesn't have a billionaire with money to blow behind it? Anyone who wants to opt out of the bullshit seems destined to whither and die.

The only bright spot in this state of affairs is The Deck, a narrow & tasteful ad network based on the caliber of the audience, not page impressions. I've also seen sites like Daring Fireball do feed and site sponsorships on a weekly basis, but I've never seen the implementation of either The Deck or single sponsorships that scales past an author or two / funding a company's side hobby. No one has a staff of 10 in actual news media crowing about revenue growth. How do you pay for a staff without CPM? Icrontic sure as hell failed at it, even with CPM and its shitty overlays and slow pageloads.

The only thing that seems even remotely sustainable is a member-funded effort, where readers contribute money for a "subscription" (for already-public content) or just the joy of knowing they're keeping the thing they enjoy alive. But what does that transaction look like? What are the economics necessary to add a staff person, and how do you keep enough transparency that folks don't turn on you for earning "too much" money? The sad economics of being YouTube famous says it all: the mob hates it when you are successful but is bewildered when you aren't.

This past year I started following Melody Joy Kramer as she asked a seemingly innocent but incredibly profound question: What is a public media? I mulled that over a while. And where I'm at right now is: I think if we can find the crossroads of forums and public media, we might just have a way forward.

wow, that resonates pretty hard in me. lately ive been feeling a bit like stan marsh when he started "getting older." by that i mean ive been feeling like a pessimistic asshole, but occasionally i think maybe its not me.
i definitely think that Icrontic is better off for not being a giant site. its small tight knit community is what makes this a last safe place for me on the internet, and sometimes even from real life. i get that warm fuzzy feeling every time i see a possibly controversial remark go unpunished by a mass of trolls or idiots spouting crap from behind the safety of anonymity.
Thank you Icrontic. Dont change.