TheMicropaymentBay. ARRR...gh.

February 12, 2010 11:48 AM

Micropayment incarnates once more, this time through the offices of one of ThePirateBay's creators. In the Flattr tip-jar system, rather than making individual credit card transactions, one makes a lump sum payment, and then all those sites whose "Flattr" buttons you have chosen to press receive a fraction of your "Flattr" Tax for that month.
posted by darth_tedious (38 comments total)

(Oh god will Web 2.0 titles please just die)

But this does actually sound like a good idea -- a nice route around the micropayment problems of: 1) Having to go through hassle to make a micropayment, and 2) Feeling guilty no matter what amount you decide to donate.
posted by Drexen at 12:00 PM on February 12, 2010

So it seems like the goal here is to get around the service charges and the like that make giving someone a dollar or two a big pain. If that would work, it seems like a good idea.

The flat rate part is what I don't really understand. It seems like being able to give more "slices" to people who you like more is something that a lot of people would want to do. Also, while 10$ a month might be all I care to / can afford to kick in, you might be happy to spend 30$ a month. I was pretty surprised neither one of those was addressed in the video.
posted by paisley henosis at 12:03 PM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is probably the best micropayment system I've heard of, but it'll only succeed if a lot of sites adopt it. So, how 'bout it, mathowie?
posted by signalnine at 12:04 PM on February 12, 2010

I wish the website had information in a non-video form, as well.
posted by annsunny at 12:04 PM on February 12, 2010

On no-edit: it also seems like if this becomes wide-spread, the early adopters will see their income from it shrink dramatically; a handful of readers whose cakes are cut into a handful of pieces is much more money than if your readers are Flattring everybody and their brother.
posted by paisley henosis at 12:04 PM on February 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

On no-edit: it also seems like if this becomes wide-spread, the early adopters will see their income from it shrink dramatically; a handful of readers whose cakes are cut into a handful of pieces is much more money than if your readers are Flattring everybody and their brother.

This assumes the readers won't also adopt Flattr. It should scale pretty well if they do -- 1/1000th of 1000 people's money is the same as 1/10th of 10 people's money. I'm guessing the flat rate is probably pretty small, which makes many readers the key to making real money from the system.
posted by vorfeed at 12:10 PM on February 12, 2010

On no-edit: it also seems like if this becomes wide-spread, the early adopters will see their income from it shrink dramatically

Presumably that would be made up for by a corresponding increase in the number of participants on the supply side.
posted by jedicus at 12:12 PM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Does it take Flooz?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:13 PM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]

I actually think this is a good idea, because it gets rid of the "do I really want to pay for this issue", if the money is already gone.
posted by delmoi at 12:14 PM on February 12, 2010

Flattry gets you everywhere.
posted by Elmore at 12:17 PM on February 12, 2010

> But this does actually sound like a good idea

It's a start.

At this point, it's a guilt-removal system rather than an equitable payment system. The author of a Flattr'd blog post gets the same payment as the author of a 300 page ebook, unless the visitor chooses to make multiple payments to the latter.

Ultimately, to make a really commercially effective micropayment system, one that can actually integrate into the larger economy and become something content creators build around, there has to be an element for demanding and enforcing a specific price. A specific, premium price helps supports big, ambitious, time-consuming works. Absent that, there's little incentive to do more than create one minute YouTube videos, five-second music loops, and quickie blog posts.
posted by darth_tedious at 12:19 PM on February 12, 2010

Why do the kids hate vowels so much?

Micropayments depend on everyone trusting the holding house for the cash. How much do they make in interest while holding your money? How do you trace that your money was dispersed as you requested. Can the clearing house freeze your account for what they claim is fraud (Hello PayPal)? Does the clearing house have to behave under banking regulations? Is your money insured while they hold it?

The technical part of how to do micropayments is easy. The tough part is faith. Money depends on people having faith in the system. US currency is backed by faith in the government. Banks are backed by the government insurance. Advertising Flattr as the next big thing from a founder of The Pirate Bay doesn't strike me as being terribly likely to convince the average person to trust them with their cash.
posted by Babblesort at 12:24 PM on February 12, 2010 [4 favorites]

I like this idea, but suspect while it may become somewhat current among "insiders," if your website's audience is Uncle Ed and Aunt Edna, non-savvy computer people, they'll never find their way to something like Flattr. Make it something you can refill via Amazon, maybe.
posted by maxwelton at 12:26 PM on February 12, 2010

I thought everyone hated tipping.
posted by Cranberry at 12:31 PM on February 12, 2010

Cranberry: "I thought everyone hated tipping."

That's just Mr. Pink. He's crotchety that way.
posted by symbioid at 12:32 PM on February 12, 2010

I like this general idea, but I can't see one provider cornering the market ala paypal, which is a good thing. Bring it on.

One thing I would like to see, is how much I have already donated to a website recently. I micropay for so many things on the net already, but it's tough to remember which ones, how much, and when.
posted by parallax7d at 12:32 PM on February 12, 2010

> Advertising Flattr as the next big thing from a founder of The Pirate Bay doesn't strike me as being terribly likely to convince the average person to trust them with their cash.

Yeah, no kidding. I see this as a PR move, as much as anything else. "What? Why are you complaining about your work being stolen? I have now created Flattr-- so people can choose to pay you, and you can get the same payment for your months of work as someone who made a video of his sleeping ferret!"
posted by darth_tedious at 12:34 PM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yeah I think the concept is actually kinda cool. The subscription aspect is one feature that makes it a "killer app" I don't need to dig out my card or refill a paypal account (or... support paypal more than necessary).

I'm not sure about the dividing amongst more idea. In some ways, neat... In others, I agree with many here that it would be nice if I could choose beforehand how much to give.

What if the author wanted to put a recommended amount?

I dunno. I feel like there could be alternative/parallel approaches to this...
posted by symbioid at 12:41 PM on February 12, 2010

The technical part of how to do micropayments is easy. The tough part is faith.

It depends on what you view as technical and what you view as trust. The technical part is, er, technically, how can you reduce transactional fees enough to make the friction of micropayments virtually non-existent - while riding on the rails of existing payment systems. In other words, the only reason why flattr would work is that it plugs in to either the credit card payment networks (via an "acquirer") or uses direct account payments/clearing houses (like when you give a canceled check to a merchant for them to get your RIID/Account info). Transactional fees for either would prohibit any other approach than aggregating monthly and my guess is that they use the latter as, at least in the US, clearing houses like NACHA charge a fraction of Visa/MC. The fact that it is monthly recurring with the same fee, and therefore by definition must use "slices" of different sizes to content creators, is also important. That's part of the reason gym memberships and the like can be processed economically.

The trust part ties in with this because your maximum exposure, level of control, etc. falls out from the technical details above. For example, if this was done as a direct account transfer there are consumer protections regs that come into play (and clearing houses that settle with flatter that enforce them). As a consumer, I would trust flattr, or any such service, if my maximum downside was one months worth of accrual and I knew I could shut it off at any point (since it ties into traditional payments, see above).
posted by SoFlo1 at 12:43 PM on February 12, 2010 [4 favorites]

I find the "omg people won't create long works because they're paid the same as short ones!" fear kind of bizarre. People already create long works on the internet, for free. I don't doubt that SEO types will cook up a ton of short, lazy blogs, but that's not going to stop serious artists from creating serious art.

Besides, an obvious workaround would be to allow the user to click the Flattr button more than once if they want to donate more than one slice, and/or for authors to put more than one Flattr button on the site (say, one button per chapter of a book or section of a video).
posted by vorfeed at 12:52 PM on February 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

Why do the kids hate vowels so much?

I suspect it has to do with the fact that it costs a lot to buy them these days. Not just the domain, which is probably less expensive than the trademark on a non-unique spelling. The fact that it's a web 2.0 signal is probably more of a side effect than a trend.
posted by weston at 1:12 PM on February 12, 2010

I think this post would be more useful if it linked directly to the flattr site, rather than the boingboing article, which is thin on detail.
posted by picea at 1:21 PM on February 12, 2010

picea: I think this post would be more useful if it linked directly to the flattr site, rather than the boingboing article, which is thin on detail.

The "Flattr" link does exactly that.

vorfeed: Besides, an obvious workaround would be to allow the user to click the Flattr button more than once if they want to donate more than one slice, and/or for authors to put more than one Flattr button on the site (say, one button per chapter of a book or section of a video).

True, but the first makes each slice smaller and lacks the discretion of spending specific ammounts per creator, and the second one encourages more of the same "one content divided over a dozen pages for extra pageviews chances to hawk Flattr.

Also, it sounded in the video like these slices would automatically be done every month; clicking for a video you watched wouldn't just give that person $1, or one slice of this month's take, but one slice of every month's take. Unless I misunderstand.
posted by paisley henosis at 1:51 PM on February 12, 2010

Yes, what the internet needs is a way to incentivize quantity-over-quality content.
posted by bradbane at 2:05 PM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Awesome! Any ever seen how paypal routinely robs charities? flattr could seriously solve that problem, while giving people freedom to manage charitable giving.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:25 PM on February 12, 2010

Ultimately, to make a really commercially effective micropayment system, one that can actually integrate into the larger economy and become something content creators build around, there has to be an element for demanding and enforcing a specific price. A specific, premium price helps supports big, ambitious, time-consuming works. Absent that, there's little incentive to do more than create one minute YouTube videos, five-second music loops, and quickie blog posts.

One way of profiting doesn't intervene with the other. A Swarm Of Angels is a way to arrange for crowd financing before starting on a big project, and Flattr might actually work as a merit badge for getting that sort of financing up front. Much like previous sales of your album would entice a record company to invest in a new one with you, people actually paying fifty cents for your cover photo of the band might help you get crowd funding for another project.

Being an artists isn't supposed to be about tipping or living of others good will — it's important work which needs to be recognized — but there has to be a pragmatic approach to how easily copyable works can be remunerated for, and there has to be a multitude of approaches to funding (corporate, governmental, private, crowd, academical, whatever), where Flattr would have it's place. I'd gladly click away two dollars for one Bad Religion track (Better Off Dead), but don't care for anything else that they've done. That's rather accurate data for any financial planning they might want to do for future projects — albeit data which might mess them up if they're pandering to a crowd of Flattr early adopters — and at least as useful as any "monthly visitors on our MySpace" data.
posted by monocultured at 3:55 PM on February 12, 2010

IndieKarma tried something very similar a few years back, except, unbelievably, they forgot to include the 'click' part (one cent from your prepaid IndieKarma account went to any participating site you happened to browse to).

Flattr is a step in the right direction, but without a 'choose how much to pay' option, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go the way of IndieKarma.
posted by a little headband I put around my throat at 3:56 PM on February 12, 2010

Any ever seen how paypal routinely robs charities?

Eh? Paypals non-profit rate is cheaper than most credit card processor fees, even ones created for non-profits.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 3:57 PM on February 12, 2010

And since A Swarm Of Angels is out of commission at the moment, it might serve as an example that the finer details of crowd financing are still wanting of some serious ironing out…
posted by monocultured at 3:57 PM on February 12, 2010

Eh? Paypals non-profit rate is cheaper than most credit card processor fees, even ones created for non-profits.

I think he means Paypal robs charities, as in locking their accounts. Even metafilter ran into this recently... Paypal has a habit of permitting tens of thousands in donations, and then suddenly locking the account and demanding this-and-that paperwork, all while racking up interest on the money.
posted by vorfeed at 4:18 PM on February 12, 2010

I think he means Paypal robs charities, as in locking their accounts.

Those aren't charities with 501.3c status, those are organizations who fund raised for cause but didn't pay attention to the requirements to get the non-profit transaction rate.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 4:54 PM on February 12, 2010

I find the "omg people won't create long works because they're paid the same as short ones!" fear kind of bizarre. People already create long works on the internet, for free. I don't doubt that SEO types will cook up a ton of short, lazy blogs, but that's not going to stop serious artists from creating serious art.


It wasn't a long time ago that I could get a plate full of food at the university cafeteria. At some point, however, they decided to start serving only a spoonful per customer. This baffled me at first, but then I realized that since a spoonful is a volume larger than zero, it's the same thing as a plateful, which is also larger than zero.
posted by Anything at 5:33 PM on February 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

"I'm not sure about the dividing amongst more idea. In some ways, neat... In others, I agree with many here that it would be nice if I could choose beforehand how much to give."

That just drops you back a step to conventional micro payments using a new clearing house and gets you all the problems that come with that. The beauty of this idea is you make the decision to pay once; incur that transaction fee; and then click away. The difference between a monthly fee for telephone service and having to feed a pay phone at 10 cents per 6 seconds.

Be interesting to see how the numbers come out and, if it gains decent adoption, what kinds of product get covered by it.

It seems like the real problem would be the receivers of funds gaming the system to increase their shares.
posted by Mitheral at 5:42 PM on February 12, 2010

I'm sorry, my story above is not true. It is however, essentially what you were saying. It's wrong, because

a) Some artists who would create ambitious works will not do so if they need a day job because time is limited and you can't direct a film if you have died from starvation.

b) Other artists have enough other income, or maybe they have already finished all they would have created anyway before they starve to death; either way, our money doesn't matter.

The thing to be understood here is that the reality of b) does not magically erase the reality of a).

This is obvious, unless one is trying to find a clever point from beyond the realm of reality.
posted by Anything at 5:49 PM on February 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

... 'starvation' being shorthand for any disabling circumstance that could have been avoided with sufficient funds.
posted by Anything at 6:03 PM on February 12, 2010

I'm sorry, my story above is not true. It is however, essentially what you were saying.

No, it's not. What I'm saying is that payment is not a necessary condition for serious art. This is a fact, and it remains a fact whether or not it "magically erases" some currently-nonexistent amount of serious art which might have been created for pay.

"There might be more serious art if we paid artists better" is a reasonable statement, but things like "absent that, there's little incentive to do more than create one minute YouTube videos, five-second music loops, and quickie blog posts" are not. The latter completely ignores all non-monetary incentives, even though those often outweigh dollars in the case of art. If statements like this were true, then the internet would be nigh-devoid of serious works, because there has never been a reliable way for the vast majority of internet content creators to get paid for their work. They do it anyway.

In particular, I don't see any "plate full of food" that artists are losing, here. How exactly is Flattr turning an existing plate into a smaller mouthful? I don't see how it takes away artists' ability to charge via traditional payments if they want to. This system seems squarely aimed at creators who aren't already getting paid... those who are don't need to bother with it, except perhaps as an additional revenue stream.

Besides, all of this ignores the fact that Flattr is designed to scale. If your art really is that much better than a video of a sleeping ferret, then more people will click your Flattr button, and you'll end up with more money than the sleeping ferret guy. The system seems equal to the readers, but it's not necessarily equal to the creators, because some will end up with many more readers and thus many more "slices" than others.
posted by vorfeed at 8:18 PM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

I really like this, and it would also be great for them to publish the data, showing the top Flattrs by day, week, month and so on - like a Digg that showed what people were willing to pay for.
posted by DanCall at 4:43 AM on February 13, 2010

This looks very interesting. I'd like to see the top Flattrs too...
posted by arnicae at 12:54 PM on February 13, 2010