Help Newsvine Become Profitable - Donate Earnings Back to Newsvine

Good idea.

I've explained this elsewhere, but I might as well repeat it here. According to a few Internet traffic tracking sites, the majority of traffic that hits newsvine does not go to user columns but is instead directed to the main newsvine domain. The amounts that would be donated back would be statistically insignificant when compared to their main revenue.

Also, the 50k per month burn rate was an example of a something good not bad. They were comparing current startup burn rates to those in the dot com bubble of the late '90s when companies were chugging millions per month.

Newsvine has not even been open to the public for a year, had full ad runs for less than that. Startups don't just automatically start generating profits. You've done a good job if your new business can make a profit in 18 to 24 months. I've read in interviews that their plan was to run in the black by summer 2007. Give newsvine time. Let them at least follow their own business plan.

I think a voluntary donations is actually a bad thing and a bad sign for the site. It would show that newsvine's revenue model is not working. That the site needs to rely on the inconsistent generosity of its users for existence.

Newsvine needs to remain a real business to succeed. They cannot be a charity case.

Save the donations for real charities.

Rather than a donation basis, would a subscription fee accommodate the operating system with a baseline operating capitol? 1) Projected dollar amount? 2)subscription entitlements? 3)Stated hierarchy-goals of the site

The site has a certain amount of appeal ($value) if users can see some results.

vladimer presents us with a dilemma of loyalty and concern that we should all consider. I share his thoughts but I also have my understanding of business motivations and success dynamics. I don't want Newsvine to miss a chance to succeed because of a few dollars that I might help them with. On the other hand I don't want them to fail because I have led others to think Newsvine is a charity case. I will leave my two cents this way: If Newsvine needs my small nest egg, I will gladly let them use it. I won't give it to them outright. If they need it, they can ask and they can have it. I will only request they promise that when they become comfortably successful they return my contribution with gratitude.

I would suggest to those who may want to help Newsvine grow that they contribute stories in both original and seeded form. I hear a lot of comment about seed value opposed to original material value. I would suggest from the Newsvine point of view that seeding can be just as important as new stories. A seeded story was good enough to catch a member's attention and to expend the time to bring it to Newsvine. Original material varies so much in value (based on many factors which are only determined once published) that on a per item basis it does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of the seeded material in general. When I start to see large amounts of Newsvine articles seeded elsewhere I will know we have arrived.

while i profess no experience in the money part of running a company, i think that the real dilemma here is what will happen to newsvine once it does become profitable..

the fear i hold is that the goal of the staff may well be to build it and sell it.

once sold to a conglomerate like yahell or google, newsvine as we know it will probably cease to exist and the 12 -16 demographic will take over ala digg.

i can tell you that while i know some smart young people, i am not going to invest the small amount of time that i have to get smarter with that age range. i'd rather listen to old fogey and killfile ..etc...

my point is be careful about what you wish for.. you might not like it so much when you get it.

Well my view of the donation debate is this: most people don't come here for the monetary incentive, they come here because they like the community. Added to this is the fact that a LOT of people have like 5 dollars sitting in their earnings pool doing nothing. If they don't really want that 5 bucks I don't see the harm in putting a "give to Newsvine" button in there.

Although now that I think about it, there might be a small image problem as new users who don't know that this was a user initiative might get the wrong idea when they see that the site that is supposed to be paying them is asking for their money back.

Come on, Vlad, you've already got you Random Act of Vineness award, you don't need to put icing on the cake. ;)

Newsvine has earned a very good reputation, by earning citation in "TIMES"; it should accept advertisements to supplement revenue

Would this be considered corporate welfare?

Sorry, I love Newsvine, but I'm not donating the meager amount of money I've earned back to them.

Why?

Because one of the reasons I love Newsvine is that they've given me the opportunity to earn -something- for my not-inconsequential efforts.

I already donate my time and work to Newsvine. I suspect they feel that's enough.

Newsvine is not a non-profit organization. It is funded by venture capitalists. Their survivability in this Newsvine venture depends more on increasing the number of people registered with the site than with ad revenue. The real value of Newsvine is in 1) developing a viable business model (that could later be sold for millions), and 2) "cyber-squatting"; i.e. carving out a niche of community users.

E-commerce has never been concerned about immediate profitability. The revenue sharing ("pittance popping") is just a gimmick to bait people into participating. As I've written before, this revenue sharing, at least in its present form, is more distracting than its worth. I recommended that it be abandoned. Every month shortly after the earnings are released, there is a wave of comments from disgruntled Newsviners ON THE FRONT PAGE for all the world to read. What impact does this have on Newsvine's public image, let alone its marketability?

I have advocated adopting an alternative reward system. What that is has yet to be determined. It could be something as simple as a counter affixed to articles and seeds so that the Newsviner has the visual satisfaction of knowing that people are interested in his or her contribution even though they do not vote or comment. Or, a reward could be as substantial as SHARES IN THE COMPANY.

In any event, the CEO's of Newsvine need to do some serious thinking about the future of their venture.

TAKE MY MONEY! I JUST WANT COLLEGE CREDIT! lol.

Internships. Give us Newsvine internshiiips.

I can't believe I'm seeing this -- bleeding-heart Capitalists! Seriously, Newsvine is a business, just like the Times, or Coca-Cola. They have a product which they're building which will eventually equal revenue in ads, etc. if they are doing their job right. Why on earth would I want to supplement their corporate income? Ridiculous.

Mmm...donuts....there should be a "buy donuts" option for our earnings.

I am all for donating....

I would rather keep what pittance is allowed me just to be part of somethings "Burn-rate"

Makes me feel powerful.

I think this is a bad idea. Newsvine needs to be able to sustain itself without donations if it is to be a serious site imo. At times I have felt like donating, and I suppose I would donate some money should it be an option, but I think that there is no option to donate back to newsvine for a reason.

I've earned $.89 and I'm keeping it! My fingers are raw, I need to at least save enough for some Neosporin here.

What, donate my earnings back to newsvine? My god man, however will I support myself? I suppose I could buy them some more staples for their stapler, but I don't know...

Somehow it just seems so... socialist. I'm expecting an angry pack of libertarians to descend on this thread at any moment.

How about just not withdrawing you earnings. Wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing!?!?

I LIKE DONUTS!

If Newsvine didn't pay anyone at all, do you think that might build even more community? Maybe paying money draws in people who care more about the money (even if that's naive, since the compensation is pretty small) than about the community? And maybe turns away people who place a high value on communities that aren't sustained by economic incentives?