A good Idea!

[Flogg]

I read your thing admin that you posted and how you were talking about some way of making money. There was a site that didn't have any money to keep hosting so they added a donation button and within a few weeks it was back on it's feet. I think adding a donation button would be the best solution. If it's money you need then add a donation button and you'll be surprised at how many donate to it. If that fails then try creating the pro version and see if that works!

[GDS]

Another idea:

Keep the editor free, but charge money for libraries of scripts and templates etc.

The members could donate scripts and templates etc, and organize the practical things, like organizing in categories, debugging etc. Make 50% of the net income go to humanitarian prosjects, and 50% to evolve the editor.

That will make the members have something useful to do while waiting for "Messias" to arrive. If this really is becoming good business, the contributors might also get a share of the profit.


GDS

[D856C]

There are many (many) free script sites, so unless the scripts offered are of uncommon uniqueness and value, revenue is unlikely to meet even modest expectations. This would force User/Web visitor focus, and I mean moving from "cool" to "what do Web visitors want they are not getting." Needless to say, this borders on information architecture and usability issues. Quite frankly, it also requires an insight into the very issue of what is currently working to make sites money.

You should consider: 1) a professional version. This would be geared toward collaboration, content management, and project management. No easy feat, as dedicated commercial developments with usability teams have messed this up. This will require actual use/case work, user observation and usability testing. Make no mistake, if you want this added functionality to work for users, this is not a nice option.

2) Something somewhat interesting: Fund a feature programs. Depending on how it is handled, this could be a mechanism for knowing (no, really knowing) what users want. There is a problem of democratizing the contribution process so large single contributions don't drown out many small individual ones.

Finally, a success requires handling the human communication function skillfully and well.

[GDS]

D856C wrote:
There are many (many) free script sites, so unless the scripts offered are of uncommon uniqueness and value, revenue is unlikely to meet even modest expectations. This would force User/Web visitor focus, and I mean moving from "cool" to "what do Web visitors want they are not getting."

We might select only the most useful scripts for the "pay for" libraries. The rest could be free.

I think that we might shift this forum members focus from
"what do we want" to "what can we contribute with".
It actually would feel much better to participate in problem resolution which all would benefit from.

We might also give all that contribute with a script that is voted in the pay-for library, a free copy of the current library.

Even if this is not makeing money, I think it would be fun, and attract many members.

GDS

[D856C]

I think that we might shift this forum members focus from"what do we want" to "what can we contribute with".

This is easier said than done, but worth an elightened try. I do wish the attempt every success. I would suggest focus shift one step further to "What serves the users of the program's users. In other words the customers of Web developers, not the users of 1st Page."

[GDS]

D856C wrote:

I would suggest focus shift one step further to "What serves the users of the program's users. In other words the customers of Web developers, not the users of 1st Page."

That sort of corporate "altruism", I don't think anyone would go for unless they get paid for it.

(corporateMorality != personalMorality) :D

This is a matter of point of wiew, not of right or wrong.


GDS

[D856C]

User focus is user focus, be it a non-profit, personal, gaming or coporate site. You can sit users down, watch them, see where they have difficulty, then try to fix it.

Integrating some of that into tools isn't corporate anything. Nor is it, necessarily, a corporate concern -- although it does help when the user is a customer.

And it certainly should help when the concern is in line with the topic being discussed

I read your thing admin that you posted and how you were talking about some way of making money.