22 Feb 2005 | Adam said...

did you give money because you felt sorry for him?
or does it actually have any use?

To be honest i dont really understand the concept of paying for him to live a life that he then tells you about.

Why not just read a good book?

22 Feb 2005 | Derek said...

Yeah at least John Gruber at DaringFireball writes about something interesting to a specific audience like Mac nerds, rather than writing about daily life with a collection of links that I've already read. Plust you can at least pretend that you're buying a t-shirt from him rather than making a donation. With kottke you only have a chance of receiving anything of value.

22 Feb 2005 | JF said...

did you give money because you felt sorry for him?

I gave him money because I enjoy reading his site -- more so than most magazines I pay to subscribe to. I also gave because I like supporting people who go out on their own against the odds. Many people dream of being their own boss, taking control of their work life, doing their own thing. Jason's walking the walk and I applaud and support him for that.

22 Feb 2005 | ramanan said...

I think you are paying to support a site you like. He actually doesn't tell you about the life he leads much at all; he does however post plenty of interesting links and occasionally muses on interesting subjects related to the internet.

22 Feb 2005 | Fred said...

This is dumber then hanging sheets in the park.

22 Feb 2005 | Nollind Whachell said...

I wish him all the best and I'm very interested in seeing how it works out for him, as I've been watching for something like this to spring up for quite a while now. Unfortunately I can't afford to give much, so I'm just donating $5. Better than a kick in the pants, since it's all about reaching critical mass more than anything. I think if you get ANYTHING out of his site then I think you can afford to miss one minor purchase of the day (i.e. Starbucks coffee, bag of Jelly Beans, Soldier of Fortune magazine, etc) to go to his cause. And as for doing dumb things, well that is what life should be about, doing stupid things that no one else would do that puts you out on a limb but allows you to explore and encounter new things that no one else has.

22 Feb 2005 | Emily said...

Exactly. You pay x amount for a magazine subscription. This is no different. You donate to public radio. This is just like that. Calm down people! I'm happy for Jason. He's innovative, gutsy, and NOT a big old snob. So there. DONATE!

22 Feb 2005 | Steve said...

Yeah at first I found myself agreeing with Fred (troll), but it's no different then a magazine subscription or donating money to SOMA FM.

22 Feb 2005 | Chris S said...

Internet performance art. I love it (not enough to pay for it, but it is amusing).

22 Feb 2005 | Mike D. said...

I think Jason will succeed in supporting himself for awhile with this method and I wish him luck. He's one of the few people, being a top-tier blogger, whose audience is likely to give a decent amount of money for the cause.

Whenever this sort of thing comes up though, I always try to extrapolate it out to the question of "what if everybody did that". And the answer to that question doesn't make me feel so great about it. I follow about 110 feeds, and if they all asked for money, I don't even know what I'd do. I could give a dollar each, or I could pick 2 or 3 who were really great (and kottke might be in that group) and give $30 or so... but then the rest get none.

Or then there's the idea of a system which charges you micropayments for every article you read... which just feels too "metered" and gets messy.

For these reasons, I really do think that ad support or sponsorshop is the way to go. Not crazy screen-engulfing Flash ads, but polite contextual text ads which theoretically can actually be of use to readers from time to time. After all, you only get paid when users click on them, and if users click on them, they are potentially of use to the user. Ad support like this is, in a way, a built-in micropayment metering system for the author... but without the downside of the users actually having to pay or keep track of anything. I know it's nothing new at this point, but I still think it's the way to go long-term.

22 Feb 2005 | Chris said...

It's hard to imagine he'll raise enough to live well in NY - even if he did move to Brooklyn. If he moved back to MN he might make this work... 1500 donations at an average of $30 each is $45,000 annual gross. Can you live on that in NYC?

Also, is there anything illegal about requiring a minimum donation to have a chance to win a prize? I'm not complaining, or even really care, just thinking about the number of times we've all heard "no purchase required to win." He is, in effect, requiring a purchase to win. For some reason I think that is illegal.

22 Feb 2005 | Derek said...

Except that with a Magazine subscription you know what you'll get. You know it'll be about a certain topic, you know about how much information will be in each issue, you know how many times a year you will receive it.

With a personal blog, what's to stop him from deciding he isn't making enough from donations, so he goes back to working for "the man" and only writes a post or two every couple of weeks or months, like he did before he was asking for donations.

22 Feb 2005 | Randy said...

With a personal blog, what's to stop him from deciding he isn't making enough from donations, so he goes back to working for "the man" and only writes a post or two every couple of weeks or months, like he did before he was asking for donations.

Nothing. That's why it's a donation and not a subcription. That's why you're a patron and not a customer.

22 Feb 2005 | Chris said...

Conservative / gay blogger Andrew Sullivan just did that. He raised about $200K over a couple of years, and then after the election he bugged out and shut it down.

However, I doubt Jason and Sullivan share too many readers, so I doubt that will affect his results.

22 Feb 2005 | Derek said...

Nothing. That's why it's a donation and not a subcription. That's why you're a patron and not a customer.

I realize it's a donation, but people above are comparing it to being exactly like paying for a magazine subscription, which it isn't.

22 Feb 2005 | Randy said...

I realize it's a donation, but people above are comparing it to being exactly like paying for a magazine subscription, which it isn't.

People can compare it to whatever they want. Kottke is clear about it (patron, donation) and that's all that matters.

22 Feb 2005 | Chris S said...

Hey, more power to him. That ain't my thing, and I don't read him enough to send him money, but he's taking a risk and attempting to make an honest living at it...and also (possibly) pave the way for others who will say he was a pioneer when he did it (more or less) first.

Sounds like he's young enough that he can still get away with stuff like that, too, and write it off to the wild hairs of youth if it doesn't work out :-)

22 Feb 2005 | ML said...

Heh heh...

Europeans, the dollar is so weak right now you'd be foolish not to contribute...just think how much more kottke.org you'll be getting for your money!

22 Feb 2005 | alan taylor said...

JF - thanks for the link to the Burnham quote about "no little plans". Just a wonderful sentiment.

22 Feb 2005 | Scott M. said...

I've enjoyed Jason's site for over 6 years now and it's at the top of my list of weblogs I visit each day. I like his sensibilities and we share similar tastes, so in many ways it is a highly personalized, daily magazine/news source for me. I would miss it if it disappeared and there are only a couple weblogs I could say that about. In fact, there are only a couple of media outlets I could say that about -- web, television, magazine, etc. included.

As far as I'm concerned Jason is on the cutting edge of this new personal publishing medium (along with John Gruber and others).

Derek, just because Gruber offers something to a more readily identifiable audience (Mac Nerds), doesn't mean the information on Daring Fireball is any more or less valuable. The point is it's valuable to someone, and Kottke.org is valuable to me. One man's treasure is another man's trash.

That's the power of this medium and its hope. It allows individuals to find an niche audience from millions of people across the globe--something previously impossible.

22 Feb 2005 | Kathy said...

You have art benefactors who support artists that they enjoy, just as you have subscribers (and advertisers) who support magazines. And you have authors and publishers supported by book purchases.

In the internet world right now, you have many practicing an artistic and intellectual craft who are doing it mostly for free. Jason is pushing the envelope to see what happens.

At the very least, this is an interesting experiment.

22 Feb 2005 | monkeyinabox said...

I guess if you run one of the most popular blogs out there, why not ask for money? I'm not sure that I agree with it on the consumer end. Is his writing really worth anything to me, versus another site? I guess even if he doesn't make enough to live off patrons, then he'll feel guilty enough to still post like mad while he's working at McDonalds.

22 Feb 2005 | Jamie said...

I wonder what the tax implications will be? I'm actually surprised no one has brought this up. Is it totally tax free since we're essentially giving him money? Absolutely brilliant if it is!

22 Feb 2005 | Dan said...

I wonder what the tax implications will be?

I'm thinking "what the federal government doesn't know won't hurt them." =D

22 Feb 2005 | Adam Michela said...

I've run sites in the past using solely the funds donated by their users. I've always been pleasantly surprised by the generosity of the collective. Ya, I've had good results... but not good enough to quit my job! Haha.

However, like Davidson said, I think the simple text ad approach is more beneficial to both the publisher and the user in the long run. It would be kinda lame if this patronage model became a trend.

Anyway, I enjoy Jason's site. I subscribe to at least 100 sites and continue to find his one of the most appealing. I use his site kind of like a "news portal". It's like a news portal I don't have to customize because it already feeds me things that interest me.

I really have little interest in most of his posts... I enjoy his remaindered links the most.

So... I gave him a fifty. Just like subscribing to a good magazine or something. Good luck Jason!

22 Feb 2005 | Adam Michela said...

Oh and like I said to him...

The only thing I find weird about this whole thing is that he's not using Dropcash. I wish he had. Based off my experience, I know he'd see greater results by doing so.

22 Feb 2005 | Bohrs said...

Why am I suddenly reminded of PT Barnum?

22 Feb 2005 | Jamie said...

I'm thinking "what the federal government doesn't know won't hurt them." =D

I'm sure no one in the IRS reads blogs ... do they?

22 Feb 2005 | kareem said...

The patronage model won't become a trend, because there simply aren't enough bloggers who patrons will support.

The contextual ad model has much lower friction--you're not asking people for money--than the patronage model, and that's why it will fly for folks who don't have the traffic or, frankly, the interesting things to say that Kottke does.

22 Feb 2005 | Will Harris said...

"The only thing I find weird about this whole thing is that he's not using Dropcash."

But that would mean an upper limit. It wouldn't make sense for him to have people stop donating once he reaches say $50k, if there was another potential $25k out there.

22 Feb 2005 | kingbenny said...

Seems at least a little comparable to supporting our favorite bands by buying their music, especially the new model of downloading from Napster/iTunes/etc. What I don't like, however, is the idea of paying Kottke to continue to produce his site if it is dominated by mainly links to other pages. I hope that by becoming full-time he will put out more of his own content.

22 Feb 2005 | Steve said...

More important then blogs and art, when are we going to see the 37signals WhiteBoard?

23 Feb 2005 | AK said...

I am skeptical about being a patron of a weblog. The site is not going to change if he gets the money or not. So the main reason to donate is a chance to win autographed copies of items (I don't see free Jewelboxes and such as a draw because if I needed them, I would have bought them already).

It will put more pressure on poor Jason. He's already thought of quitting once. As long as there's money involved it means he has to keep it up... but for how long? What does $5 donation get over a $50 donation?

I do wish him the best, because if it works, I want to see more bloggers do the same thing. I have a number of people I continue to read and would like to show my apprecation (not bribe!)

23 Feb 2005 | John S. Rhodes said...

Two useless quotes. Do you know the source, without cheating (Google)?

"There are only three things you can do with a man like that. Stay away from him, kill him, or marry him."

"An open sack hides nothing, and open door hides little, but an open man is surely hiding something."