The Interledger Community 🌱: Denisa Reshef Kera

People are paying more when they see less (support) from others

Denisa Reshef Kera — Fri, 13 Aug 2021 08:21:45 +0000

In the last phase of our research, we tested if participants will contribute real money to a content maker they just encountered based on the visibility of different counters. In the first experiment the counters were prompts describing different type of relations between the content makers and viewer. This experiment elaborates the insights from the previous research.

In the second experiment, we used dynamic counters, indicating a change in the number of viewers or amount of money, to follow how their visibility influences willingness to pay. We asked the participants to share real money with the content maker from a bonus they received in the research study. Surprisingly, almost 1/2 of the participants paid something and supported the content maker.

Insights:

1) Counters showing money and time work better for "one to one" (EM) relations rather than community-oriented "one to many" interactions (CS).

In simple English: it is better to utilize counters that indicate the resources the content maker used for production rather than indicate the support of the community.
You will find more about this line of research in our previous post Time is not money and supporters are not always communal: insights into counters and widgets.

Design of the study:
We used prompts/counters that indicate EM (equality matching) or CS (community sharing) relations based on the visibility of hours or money the content maker either received from the community (CS) or invested (EM).

Prompts and counters:
a) Indicating CS relations based on money (community paid for the content XYZ, will you support the content?):
"The creator has received 200$ from his followers who backed this video that became the most popular content of the week. Please consider sharing part of your bonus with them.
How much from your bonus will you be willing to share with the creator?

b) Indicating EM relations based on money (content maker invested XYZ, will you compensate/support?):
"The creator invested 200$ into making this video, please consider sharing part of your bonus with them. How much from your bonus will you be willing to share with the creator?

c) Indicating CS relations based on time spent (community spent this much time watching, will you support the content?)
"Followers jointly watch 200 hours of videos from this content maker every week, making him the most popular content creator. Please consider sharing part of your bonus with them."

d) Indicating EM relations based on time spent/invested (content maker spent this much time making the video, will you compensate/support?):
"You watched 200 hours of free content from this channel, please consider sharing part of your bonus with them. How much from your bonus will you be willing to share with the creator?"

Results:
Counters and prompts indicating EM (equality matching relations) received higher bonuses (averages) no matter if they communicated money or time. Participants were more willing to contribute to something involving one-to-one, tit for tat relations: they were more willing to pay a maker who invested 200 USD or whose videos they watched for 200 hours for free.

Counters and prompts indicating hours in EM relations polarized the reactions into giving full amount of the bonus or 0 cents.
The prompt "You watched for free, pay something" seems to unite the responses into "either be very generous or ignore" based on the level of interest in the content.

In the case of CS (community sharing) counters the reactions to prompts indicating money triggered similar polarization as in EM (pay a lot or nothing). This differed from CS counters indicating how much time the community spent watching the video (to make it popular) that attracted some of the worse results in terms of bonuses. Almost 1/3 of the participants decided not to share their bonus (0 cents). In contrast, the reactions to the EM counter communicating that the creator spend 200 USD gave some of the best results – it made 1/3 participants contribute average of 10 cents.

Counters communicating time seem to polarize the reactions (more people gave 0 cents under CS and EM), at the same time the EM-time based counter also triggered some of the most generous reaction (20 cents bonuses) indicating that there is a particular group of viewers that appreciate content makers' time.

Participants that make more money online tend to be more generous to content makers. The most generous participants were the ones that already pay more than 50 USD on content per month.

2) Showing less is sometimes more, especially if it is about money

Design of the study:
In the next stage we decided to follow the effect of the counters as live and dynamic visual props indicating real-time number of viewers or amount of money the content attracted (compared to “no counters” situation). The counters displayed a positive trend in viewership/funds, meaning that participants saw that the content maker is gathering more attention/funds as they watched the video. We were curious to see the level of “generosity” (sharing of the bonus) based on the type of counter participants experiences.

There were three types of scenarios:

participant watches a video with visible members/viewers counter (showing a positive trend of viewership overtime)
participant watches a video with visible money counter (showing a positive trend of funds overtime)
participant watches the video with no counter.

Whether there was a counter (moving up to the level of 200 viewers or USD) or no counter, the participants were asked how much money or viewers the content attracted, to see if they noticed the counters.

In the case, no counter was shown, we asked:
How many viewers do you think supported this video?
How much money do you think the creator makes per video?

Money Counter question:
How much money do you think this creator makes per video?

Viewers/members Counters question:
How many viewers do you think supported this video?

After watching the video with or without counters, we offered them an extra monetary bonus asked them to share part of it with the content maker:
Please consider sharing part of your bonus with the creator.
How much from your bonus will you be willing to share with the creator?

Results:
Most participants paid attention to the counters and made correct guesses when the counters were visible. Of the participants exposed to counters, around a half answered correctly with others making relative small mistakes in the estimation. Of people who received a video without a counter, most assumed the content maker had less viewers/money relative to the counters we created.

However, the invisibility of the counter in fact increased generosity.

What they guessed and perceived the content maker makes or attracts differed depending on whether the focus was money x viewers. ** When participants observed an ongoing positive trend in terms of funds contributed, they were less likely to contribute themselves**

When no counter was present, the generosity depended on how much they assumed the content maker makes from the viewers: if they thought the content maker makes a relatively low amount (15-150 USD monthly from the video), the average bonus was 6 times more compared to participants who actually saw a money counter and indicating a similar amount). If they guessed the content maker makes a relatively high amount (more than 200 USD monthly), then they paid around 10 time less (0.4 cents on average) compared to 3.7 cents when they had visible counter.

This repeated with the counter showing viewership: seeing the counter versus guessing the number of viewers made the participants less generous in terms of average bonuses. Still, seeing or guessing more viewers did not lead to the same dramatic drop as in the case of money counters or guesses (the participants did not “punish” the counter maker for being popular).

Conclusions:
Not showing any counters fared better in terms of supporting participants' generosity, and the counter showing viewers had limited positive effect (their visibility was less detrimental compared to the money counter). In the case of a visible viewers counter, the participants were supportive of beginners with 11 – 50 viewers. We could assume that using no counters or counters communicating low number of viewers (11-50) is good for beginners as they attract more donations from users. On the other hand, counters communicating money seem detrimental to beginners. If the participants guessed that the content maker makes too much or too little (0 or above 200 USD), they become less generous (0 and 0.4).
Not showing a counter seems to work better for new content makers, since people assume they need their support. However, counters that show the level of content makers popularity via viewership are steadier in eliciting funds compared to those showing monetary donations. In the latter case, the counter may provoke polarizing effects once people believe the content maker "has enough" funds.

Time is not money and supporters are not always communal: insights into counters and widgets

Denisa Reshef Kera — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:19:23 +0000

We progressed in our research of counters and widgets with three experiments involving 600 participants. On them, we tested what people perceive as the “right sum” to pay given the information they see on the counter. We are grateful to Rashon and Micopeia project for providing the video, on which we tested the responses to the messages on the counters. In the last month, we used 12 different counters making visible 3 categories (the flow of money, number of members or time spent) under 4 relational models between the content makers and their supporters.

The experiments combined our previous research into the transparency/visibility of the 3 categories identified as important for the counters (active members, time, money) with the relational models mapping the relation between users and creators as a matter of hierarchy (AR - Authority Ranking, celebrity- fans status), community (CS - Community Sharing, collective goals), equality (EM - Equality Matching, tit for tot, exchange), market (Market Pricing, impersonal, speculative value).

While in the previous research, we tested how different sums of money influence the decision to support given relational model, now we extended the focus to all three categories of money, time and members visibility. Each participant in the experiments was exposed to one type of counter, and this provides us with limited data to compare which elicited the highest monetary contributions. Here is an example of what became the most successful counter: "You watched 200 hours of free content from this channel, please consider donating and funding the work of this creator. How much are you willing to give back and support this creator? This counter supported EM - equality matching relational model with visible time category ("tit for tat" over time visibility). We are sharing the example of all counters at the bottom of the page (by "counters" we mean the messages eliciting response rather than webdesign elements).

We also published the three Tableau visualizations showing the reactions to the visibility of Money, Members and Time in all relational models. On the visualization you can also check how age, gender and other responses influenced the willingness to pay under different categories and relational models. In what follows, we will discuss only some of the insights that are useful for future experiments and as inspiration for other projects. There is a visible affinity between certain relational models and categories: CS (community) and MP (market) prompts seem to work best when coupled with the visibility of money, AR (hierarchy) and EM (personal exchange) with the visibility of active members and CS (community) and EM (personal exchange) with the visibility of time spent.

Box plots of the three categories (Money, Time and Members) and 4 models (EM, AR, MP, CS)

Visibility of money supports communal projects and goals

It is surprising that quantification and visualization of the flow of money (how much the content makes) supported interactions described in terms of market and community relations rather than individual, personal, one to one relations and exchanges (EM - equality based exchanges or AR - exchanges with celebrity or content maker). In other words, impersonal messages claiming that the video is supported by a community or has a clear market value elicited more money contribution than more personal tone and requests for money by the content maker. The messages on the counters that worked well were as follows: “The video is supported with 200$ by our community members that enables the creator to continue producing such content. How much are you willing to spend to join this community?” (CS-Community sharing with visible money flows on the counter) or “The creator is offering you a subscription to his channel that will get you benefits worth of 200$. How much are you willing to pay for this service?” (MP - Market Pricing with visible money category). Supporters were more willing to pay these messages rather than counters eliciting more personal relation to the content maker over money: “ The creator invested 200$ into making this video, please consider donating to support the content. How much are you willing to give and support this creator?” (EM - Equality matching with visible money category) or “The creator has received 200$ from his followers who backed this video and made it the most popular content of the week. How much are you willing to spend on this popular creator?” (AR - Authority Ranking with visible money category).

At the present, we speculate that this has something to do with a perception of a blunt quantification over money that contrasts the more personal relations and AR and EM exchanges. It seems that the categories of time or members work better with supporting more personal relation to the content maker while visibility of money works better with content perceived as part of a community support or defined by a market. Once the counter makes visible how much money the content maker makes, it seems that going “less personal” might work better, and supporters are more willing to pay when the request either mentions a collective and impersonal efforts and goal or frames it as a business offer.
Another reason why counters quantifying attention via money did not work for AR relations (where the maker was established as an authority figure, a celebrity with popular content) is probably the common reason participants mention: that the content maker is paid enough and that s/he should be supported by a brand rather than individuals. To summarize: quantification over money and its visibility on the counters depersonalizes the relation to the content maker and it works better with collective or market driven projects.

Visibility of time supports more personal relations with the content makers

Counters showing the amount of time (either spent by the users watching and interacting with the content or by the maker creating the content) surprisingly fared better in all four models. They achieved the highest median and average values of how much participants are willing to pay for content. Their upper hinge was also higher (meaning more participants were willing to pay more in the highest 25% ) and also the lower hinge was higher (in general they paid more).

Making visible and communicating how much time users or content makers spent on the content (consumption or production) seems to support generosity and more diverse and individualized responses. The CS (community sharing) and EM (equality, personal exchange) based on time achieved the highest median and average values from all the counters from all categories. We speculate that time functions as a more neutral category (it is perceived as less blunt quantification of the relations) and offers more space for individual reactions and responses to the content maker. This allows the participants to express their appreciation and relation to the content without pressure and clearly defined expectations, which seems to support generosity.

To summarize: while EM relations scored badly with counters making visible the money flow, they had best results with counters that show time. The viewers/users/supporters want to have control over how they quantify their relation to the content makers (so defining the exact amount of money feels like a pressure). The information on how much time the content maker spent on producing the content or how much someone someone is freeloading works as a more gentle nudge to pay as we can see on the successful examples: “You watched 200 hours of free content from this channel, please consider donating and funding the work of this creator”. (EM with visible time)

Visibility of members does not support community projects and goals but rather relation to celebrity content

The visibility of how many active members support this content also surprised us: rather than working well as a communal prompt, information on members worked well for AR and EM (more personal, one to one exchanges). This result is still preliminary and it might still be that it has something to do with the number of members we chose to show (200). It might be that visualizing a larger or a smaller community would have had a different impact (we did not see any major effect in the counters showing different sums of money in the previous research but it may work differently with the categories of time and members).

Moreover, on the counters showing the number of members currently supporting something, we see that the CS message led to more agreement on how much to pay the community while EM and AR had more dispersed responses where half would like to pay but the other 1/2 does not want to pay anything.

Some last thoughts

It seems that users have an “anchor” for how much they are willing to pay. On all three box plots we see as the most frequent amounts between 5 and 10 USD in all categories and relational models.
AR relations which highlight a hierarchical and celebrity relational model seems to have affinity with counters that emphasize the time or members rather than the money the content attracted (average in the time category is almost 8 while under money 5 or 6 under members). It looks like once the users are aware how much the content maker makes, they feel they don’t need to support him/her. They also stated in the written feedback that once the content maker is famous, they expect brands to sponsor them. The information on time or members supports the celebrity status and feeling that we, users, want to be part of a trend.
CS - community sharing relations seem to be better supported by counters that show how much money was made (highest top value from all data - higher upper hinge 15,5 and whisker 19 also median 10). It seems that community goals and projects benefit when people see that the project is already supported by someone and it is a popular cause of monetary support. The visibility of the money also led more people to agree to pay substantial amounts, in this case 10 and more USD, given the visibility of past contributions to that content maker.

Messages on the counters under different categories:

Widget and Counter Cultures — Effect of Monetization Visibility on User Behavior

Denisa Reshef Kera — Sun, 07 Mar 2021 08:09:55 +0000

Project overview

Widgets, counters and trackers make visible the social relations in a community of content creators, streamers, supporters and users of various services. We are curious to see what purpose the visibility of money, time, number of users can serve. How does is affect users' attention, interest, retention and sense of community? How it supports different relational models (sense of community, authority ranking, reciprocity, market value)? Should webmonetization remain frictionless and invisible? How does the visibility of money/time/visitors affect the interaction (willingness to join, pay, support, contribute)?

We love counters

We are looking into various counters and widgets and mapping the existing strategies, conducting surveys and experiments to understand how to translate the social relations and values into counters, widgets and dashboards. This is not a typical UX challenge, more a political and social issue of stakeholder relations and community building.

We identified a tension between content makers that receive many small donations and take part in a pool of resources (like Coil) and influencers paid by brands and maecenas (Patreon model). The transparency and visibility of attention and money works in different ways in these two scenarios/services. The goal of supporting many small investments into the content means that you need to create a sense of a pool or collective action, the counters have to communicate a community value rather than individual interactions (how much you pay per content or receive). The micropayments seem to support this experience of sharing/having a stake in a project or goal rather than one to one exchange or market based relations. The early adopters however would still like to see a possibility of one-to-one interactions and payments and this tension will be an important challenge for the future of WM. We seem to need more flexible counters that support various social relations at different stages/phases.

Another common issue with widgets and counters is how easy they become “vanity metrics” without actionable information or reduce to only one function. They signal something no one cares about or does not understand or only one, very narrow function, for example a coupon, add-free experience or exclusive content.

Speculative counters

There are missed opportunities in the counters and widgets that can support different models of sharing, ranking and pricing of the content and create various "tribal," hierarchical or market relations between the content makers and different stakeholders.

We are looking into under-explored functions of counters and widgets:

tips/gifts without expecting anything in return: counter signaling the generosity of content maker/stakeholder?
payments signaling tribute and loyalty, gesture or tradition: showing to what group of users someone belongs, comparing loyalty?
balanced, quid-pro-quo exchange: counter comparing what someone gives/gains from the community?
counters supporting selling and purchasing and exchange: market with comments and quotes? better image quality?

There are examples that show a combination of these functions, such as the bits and subs donations on Twitch: they are gifts and tips but also quid-pro-quo relations supported by markets of Twitch counters. Maybe Coil/future WM services need a marketa nd page with various counters people can use to support different community models and one to one interactions?

Project team

Dr. Lior Zalmanson is a senior lecturer at the Technology and Information Management Program, Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University. His research interests include social media, online engagement, commitment, internet business models, creative experimentation, sharing economy, and algorithmic management. His research has won awards and grants from Fulbright Foundation, Dan David Prize, Google, Marketing Science Institute, Social Informatics SIG, among others. His studies were covered in The Times, Independent, PBS, Fast Company including numerous mentions in the Israeli media. In 2016 he was appointed as a research fellow at the Metropolitan Museum Media Lab. In 2017, Lior was a visiting assistant professor at NYU Stern, where he taught the "Information Technology for Business and Society" course. Lior is also the founder of the Print Screen Festival, Israel's digital culture festival, which connects internet researchers, activists, and artists. Furthermore, in his parallel life, he is a grant and award-winning digital artist playwright and screenwriter. His recent film (about drone operators) received its debut at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival.

Dr. Denisa Reshef Kera is a philosopher and designer experimenting with creative strategies of public engagement in emerging science and technology controversies. Her most recent research was on issues of RegTech and algorithmic governance as a Marie Curie Research Fellow at BISITE, University of Salamanca, and Weizenbaum Internet Institute fellow in Berlin. She used blockchain and IoTs technologies to implement ethical and regulatory guidelines into the technical infrastructures and test different methods of engaging stakeholders through prototyping. She has a global experience of a scholar researching open and citizen science projects (National University of Singapore, Arizona State University, Charles University) and she is recognized for her pioneering ethnographic work on the hackerspaces and citizen science laboratories around the world, which she described as forms of “grassroots R&D culture,” “geek diplomacy” and “science artisanship”. Links:
anonette.net
github.com

Research activities

We are interested in variety of counters and widgets and how they supports the relations between stakeholders, so definitely let us know if you have interesting experience, project or idea you would like to pursue. We are open to collaboration! In this phase we are doing a standard anonymized research over Mechanical Turk to get data and define better experiments with the counters. If you would like to see the survey and experiment, follow our project or contact us.

In January, we conducted two surveys with a total of 143 participants to get an insight into the paying for content attitudes. We asked the participants to share:

name of their favorite blogger/youtuber
how much they currently spend on online content
experience with monetizing their content
their age

We then tested how participants respond to content creator requests for support if the counter of the creator already indicates that he got 0, 5, 10, 100, 1000 or 10 000 USD. We asked the participants to elaborate on the reasons for paying/not paying, which we coded with the help of Fiske’s four models of social relations and defined 4 personas.
We coded the results into 4 types of relational models (CS- communal sharing, AR - authority ranking, EM - equality matching, MP - market pricing) based on what the act of paying or refusing to pay signal. This helped us define 4 personas and reasons why participants do or don’t support creators: freeloaders, patrons, peers, philanthropists.

How to collaborate with us

We are interested to see more examples of counters and interactions over widgets and counters. If you have an interesting challenge or experience to share, contact us. We would like to interview more users, content creators and developers with professional interest in the widgets and counters. Join us maybe in the last, exploratory (speculative) phase (May - June 2021), when we will work with ideas for future counters supporting various UX ideas.
If you would like us to present our project and challenges to your team, we will be happy to do so.

Reports and posts about our project

Report 1
Social relations supported by counters and widgets
Attitudes towards paying for content

Following projects inspire us:

Grant for the Web community inspire us every time we read a new report or post and we are really happy to be part of this as academic researchers. We enjoy the friendly vibe and the interactions with various projects. It is just wonderful to receive and send unicorn likes, so much more meaningful than academic citations etc. Something very unique is brewing here in terms of interactions between various communities: artists, academics, entrepreneurs, activists :-)

Paytrackr
Akita
Helping Minority Content Creators Monetize on the Web
Diverse income streams for musicians
Strategies for content monetization
Memex

Attitudes towards paying for content: survey

Denisa Reshef Kera — Sun, 07 Mar 2021 07:36:02 +0000

In January, we conducted two surveys with a total of 143 participants to get an insight into the paying for content attitudes. We asked the participants to share:

name of their favorite blogger/youtuber
how much they currently spend on online content
experience with monetizing their content
their age

Fiske’s models revolve around following questions which we tried to apply to WM:
*What social relations and expectations are involved in web monetization (paying for online content and visualizing/communicating the relations over counters)?
*What is the social meaning of web monetization counters and widgets?

*What do they express and communicate about the relations in the web monetization community? What does the design of the counter communicate to the individual user/community about the relations and social meaning of the payments?

We used Fiske & Haslam’s example of land and transfer of goods and services to map the models and rethink the counters. Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (2005). “The four basic social bonds”

This is not a solid sociological research (the sample is small, not balanced, randomized) but this helps us formulate a better hypothesis and decide on the next stage of the experiment with counters and visibility of transactions (we think of this as possible functions of future WM counters).

Personas based on Fiske's models
We coded the results into 4 types of relational models (CS- communal sharing, AR - authority ranking, EM - equality matching, MP - market pricing) based on what the act of paying or refusing to pay signal. This helped us define 4 personas and reasons why participants do or don’t support creators: freeloaders, patrons, peers, philanthropists.

Under CS expectations we coded statements that express some cause above their own self-interests (what they get from the content or if they like it), under AR we coded the ones that express some admiration and appreciation of the content creators and its celebrity status, under EM we coned any expectations of reciprocity and under MP ideas how much the creator makes, whether the content is already offered for free.

These are the fours personas, type of content “users” and their reasons to pay or not pay, expectations and models of relations they support:

1) Customers (24%) have a very specific and clear idea what they are paying for and they expect the relation to the content creator to be well defined (clear what they are getting in return). Their relation models are Equality Matching, Market Pricing, surprisingly even Communal Sharing but not common with Authority Ranking.

Responses of a customer persona expecting community sharing (CS) model/relationship were rare but included statements like:
“Content is beneficial so paying isnt a problem” or
“I don't think people should charge their ideas on a public platform. If they do charge their members, then they should be a concrete outcome such as a certificate.”
The customer persona supporting CS has an idea of a public good (something beneficial or public) and they are paying for it or expect something concrete in return (certificate).

We coded the following reasons as EM expectations common with customers:
“ Despite how much they make, one dollar is not an amount that would break me. I would gladly contribute one dollar for having the ability to be entertained.“
“For the sake of my time management I am not paying for content filled with advertisements.”
“Once it has reached a certain threshold, I don't feel the need to donate because it seems "enough"
“Their content is useful for me to make purchases”
The EM type customer has a clear idea of a threshold and what s/he gets in return (entertainment, time management issue, useful content).

The MP type customer responses were the most common and include clearly expressed awareness about the value and price of content (not getting advertisement, fair price, affordable, part or not part of their spending habits, premium - professional content):
“1-5 is an amount I feel I can afford to support content I like. anything more would be a bit much for my budget.”
“Ads are really annoying, it ruins the viewing experiences.”
“I WANT THE AD-FREE VERSION. SO IT IS COMFORTABLE FOR ME TO GIVE 17.”
“I don't usually spend money on YouTube/bloggers.”
“I hate ads and the time it takes to load them. So I would pay for their ommision.“
“It's worth it to mean to have fewer ads which take extra time I'd rather spend on more worthwhile content”
“I feel it's a fair price to pay”
“They deserve it for the amount of content produced”
“Why would I pay? I watch youtube for free content. If I want premium content that is what Netflix/Prime are for.”

2) Patrons (22%) support content creators because they admire them, they do not express clear ideas of what they are getting in return (as customers), more some general threshold of what they deserve or that they simply like them. We coded this as an AR relational model, there is some hierarchy involved in the idea of how much to pay. We also coded a few EM and MP relation model statements.

Responses:
“as he is uploading so many unknown facts”
“It's only a dollar and i like her”
“If they made over $1,000 I can help support other creators that haven't hit that mark yet, but I would support my favorite creator up until that price point.”
“I'm willing to pay because I believe that their efforts and creations are good enough that they should receive monetary rewards”
“I will pay if he hasnt made a lot. I wont pay someone that is making a lot off the video though.”
“I want to support him”
“I think that if a content creator is constantly putting out content i enjoy i should support them”
“I support his content and effort”
“I really like this YouTuber, so I would feel happy to support them and their content.”
“I like to support the content creator and make sure they can continue to comfortably do it.”
“I just love his work and willing to support him”
“I enjoy the information that Stephen offers and he is a very generous guy.”
“I enjoy the content, she takes a lot of time making the videos and should earn some money from it.”
“he has good content fun to watch”
“Because i enjoy their content I want to support them.”
Patrons expecting EM relations are more explicit about the threshold and reason they will pay or stop supporting the content creator, awareness of the standing of the creator in some hierarchy:
“I like to support creators I like but they have other revenue streams available to them that limits when and how much I'm willing to pay.”
“I pay based on whether or not I want to support them, not based on how much other people have (or have not) supported them.”
“Peoples time is worth something and the work they put into that video. However to be overpaid is my motive to not pay after a certain amount received”
“The content should either be free or not, hiding stuff behind a pay wall instantly makes me less interested. If I like the content I'll tip them some money, forcing me to pay for it is not a good look and will make me lose interest fast”
“Youtube shares advertising revenues, so they're already making money from their content. I'd only give $1 to start the ball rolling if they have no donations or only a little. If they're popular, they don't really need money from viewers. I'd rather pay for ad-free content.”

3) Freeloaders (49%) were the most common persona among our participants and they listed various reasons for not paying basically. The most common was that they simply can’t afford it in the present but plan to do it in the future or that they think that the creator makes too much or s/he is supported by brands etc.

Freeloaders expecting AR relational model refuse to pay because the creator is a celebrity and they do not see any effect their support would have, it will be invisible:
“He has so many supporter my dollar would not matter much.”
“he is already rich”
“He's a gambler who literally bets up to 10000 dollars on slots or more. He doesn't need money”
“he's a youtube so he makes money on advertisements that play on his videos...he doesnt need my money too”
“He's already rich.”
“i don't care to involve myself too much with random celebrities or youtube videos. they already make enough money as it is, so my money isn't going to do much for them”
“youtubers make money through ad revenue, so I'll do that instead... I'm poor”

There is a type of freeloader that expects CS relational model and will not support paid content that used to be free (information wants to be free):
“I think that youtube or blogger content should be free and we can donate if we want to. There should be no requirement to pay to view things that used to be free.”

The freeloaders often list EM relational models as a reason for not paying (aware it is not fair but they don’t have money currently to pay, there is similar free content, the creator makes enough, the content will be made even if they don’t contribute):
“Although I enjoy their content, there are plenty of similar videos out there--and I know he already makes a living off his content.”
“do not have funds for it”
“He made enough”
“I am barely surviving in poverty right now and can hardly pay the rent. I am not in a position to donate for nonessential things even if I enjoy them.”
“I don't have extra money to spend on not essential or important things to me.”
“I have my on expenses to worry about”
“I live below the poverty line and am about to lose my home.”
“I need the money, the utuber already makes money from people viewing his content.”
“I think they don't depend on my money to make their content.”
“I'd rather not have an expense for something that i can view for free”
“Money is tight for me at the moment”
“money problems”
“They are already making money off ads, I don't mind watching ads so I don't mind continuing to get the content truely free.”
“When they are making a lot of money, I will not pay.”
“Why would I pay them they're rich”

Freeloaders also list MP relation model as a reason for not paying (they never pay for this type of service/content, there is always how to get it for free, they don’t mind advertisement, they have other plans with their money):
“Don't believe in paying for online content.”
“I am not paying a blogger”
“I do not feel inclined to pay additional money for what can be a satisfactory free service.”
“i do not want to pay for content”
“I don't agree with paying for content”
“I don't like paying for blogs”
“I don't spend money on contents”
“I don't think that the content is worth that amount of money.”
“I dont care about adverts..I use adblock for that. As far as that particular youtuber, she has a patreon and makes money on that..I'm not gonna pay her on youtube too”
“I never pay for any subscription like that”
“I prefer saving money and use mostly free stuff both online and offline.”
“I think people on youtube make enough money.”
“i would never pay a blogger”
“I would prefer not to pay as I would not be able to afford it regularly.”
“It is free usually”
“It is not in my budget”
“it is not worth it. Too many other options on the internet.”
“It is something I can access somewhere else for free”
“It isn't professional content.”
“It's currently free”
“So much content on social media that is free, so not necessary to pay.”
“There are so many free blogs out there that I see no need to pay for them.”

4) Peers (3%) very few examples of this persona, mainly under the EM relational model expressing more complex reasons why they can’t pay or how they try to compensate in other ways (opens an interesting issue of non-monetary support of the content makers):
“I cannot afford to pay other people for their content at the moment, instead, I support them by watching and liking their videos, commenting and subscribing to their channel.”
“I feel the person has made enough money, and I would like to save my money. If the person hasn't made some money, I might give a donation.”

Under CS model we listed two abstract reasons that express why people pay:
“I live to give”
“I like to contribute”

Peer and philanthropist have more abstract and complex reasons for supporting content makers.

5) Philanthropist (3%) were also very few expressing EM and CS relational models that strangely would like to support new and less known content makers:
“after a certain point I would like to help those more in need”
“to help out”
“If the startup is small then I don't mind paying but if it is large and is generating cash then I see no real need to support them financially.”
“The likes of David Dobrik already make a lot of money with sponsorship deals. I'd rather contribute to someone who needs the money, like a charity for example.”

The philanthropist motivation seems close to some behavior we can notice in the case of the Twitch community where there are also various services supporting streamers with less than 10 viewers or even no viewers and various experiences people list as a reason to support them.

General observations about the personas and paying for content attitudes, spending habits:
More money they spend on content (under the question how much they spend currently), less they expect MP (market) relational models or AR (celebrities), they seem to have EM expectations, clear ideas what they exchange with the creator, what they gain from it. Among the ones that pay between 1 - 5 USD, the customer persona was more common with concrete reasons for what they get in return, in the 11-50 it was more the patron persona with some admiration for the creator. It is surprising that among the freeloaders that would not pay for content half actually pay in the present in various categories (1-5 USD, 6 - 10, 11 - 50, even above 50). AR model was generally more popular in the age group 25 - 34 when compared to the other demographic groups, the 35 - 44 as a group preferes MP over other models (also true of the 25 - 34), EM seems slightly more popular in the 45 - 54.

What social relations counters and widgets support?

Denisa Reshef Kera — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 10:44:00 +0000

Update

Our team conducted the first survey which we will share next week in Report 2. In this post we will summarize the interviews and research into counters that helped us define the theoretical framework: Alan Fiske's four relational models (communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing).

Counter supporting stakeholders interaction

Based on a recommendation, we checked an example of a good practice for widgets/counters: Fairmint is a platform for buying and earning equity in companies and its widget engages the stakeholders in understanding and sharing various resources with the company: “Individuals have switched from being passive consumers to being an essential force in creating value, either by their actual work (Airbnb, Uber, Apple's App Store, Amazon Marketplace...) or through their data (Facebook, Google...). For that reason, financially aligning stakeholders to the success of the company is now the strongest competitive advantage that a company can build. Yet, there is no easy solution to do that today (see the letters sent by Airbnb and Uber to the SEC asking to let them give equity to their hosts and drivers respectively).” Quote link

The widget supports stakeholder engagement and extends the meaning of “equity” but also blurs the line between investor, user and supporter. Interaction with stakeholders (rather than only users or investors) seems to define a new UX challenge: what data and how to share them with stakeholders to gain and sustain their support for a project, platform or product. Looking at Fairmint widget shifted our initial focus from the simple distinction between frictionless x fully transparent interactions between content makers & readers/viewers (when and what to disclose over the counters) to a more complex issue of what social relations widgets and counters support.

How counters and widgets communicate and facilitate the relation between various stakeholders (big and small investors or stakeholders but also the various expectations and uses of the platform)?

Tensions in counters between communal value x exchange

There is a tension between content makers that receive many small donations and take part in a pool of resources (like Coil.com) and what we commonly describe as influencers that are often paid by brands and mecenas (Patreon model). The transparency and visibility of attention and money works in different ways in these two scenarios/services. If the goal is to support many small investments into the content (stock/company), you need to create a sense of a pool or collective action, counters have to communicate a community value rather than individual interactions (how much you pay per content or receive).

The individual transactions seem less meaningful and work against the communal goals, even dilute the efforts of the group. Counters for micropayment "collective" type of action should emphasize the goals of the various groups and make visible how small donations and interactions have collective impact (such as “today as a ABC group we achieved XYZ goal - supporting XYZ members of our collective” or how it supports new content maker efforts “thanks to your micropayments, XYZ number of content makers will get paid for their music, story, writing”).

The micropayments seem to support more the experience of sharing/having a stake in a project/goal rather than one to one, exchange, market based relations. The micropayment counters differ from the ones following services that prioritize big “investors,” brands and maecenas supporting influencers. For Patron etc. counters, the content makes is a brand, something of a luxury goods, so they have to communicate the price, how much s/he earns, who supports them.

GameStop lesson in collective action

One recent example of a conflict between different stakeholders in a service that explains the challenge for micropayment counters is the GameStop saga: small investors proved they can beat big stakeholders (hedge funds Goliaths but also algo-traders) by using old fashioned collective action bordering with mob behavior. How do counters communicate/make transparent this collective power of small “investors” into content? Should Coil etc. micropayment counters show the “pulse” of the whole community that invests into this new model of content sharing? Something like “today XYZ bloggers and video makers were paid ABC amount or DEF number of new users joined?” or “if everyone brings one more friend to support COIL, we will reach XYZ target”? The collective impact (and not individual microtransactions) seems to be the focus of such frictionless content-support solutions.

Another interesting trend that Fairmint shows is that supporters of a product, company or (maybe) content want to participate also outside the “stock option”. The stakeholders in case on webmonetized content may want to co-design, provide feedback, even actively work on some part of the content, find new ways of supporting what they read/listen to/watch. Maybe the counter should monitor and offer different possibilities of engagement? Should we webmonetize also the activity of sharing and commenting on the content, editing, checking grammar and typos, mash-ups, curating the content into categories? Should we support open ended and collective engagements: this month we all write about XYZ and allocate resources to that? This is a start of my story, how should we continue?

Counters between "vanity metrics" and narrow/one function

The problem with all widgets and counters is how easy they become “vanity metrics” without providing actionable information. Another problem is that sometimes they have only one, very narrow function, for example:
Counter/widget supporting coupons: shows coupons related to different sites (in webmonetization this could be extra services connected to a content even personal adverts - favorite olive oil in a recipe?).
Counter/widget supporting exclusive content: another integration of blockchain with content that supports direct engagement over paywalls and donations (less frictionless but more complicated in terms of following what you are paying).
The various tensions in the widgets between collective and individual values (how it creates a sense of common purpose x individual gain), specific of vanity metrics issues, reminded us of Alan Fiske’s 1992 a unified theory of how objects, institutions (and design) express different social relations, his four forms of sociality (relational models theory).

Relational models and counters

In our current research, we are mapping the Fiske’s fundamental models of organizing social relations on the web monetized online content. The counters and widgets signal payments, number of users or time spent on sites but also expectations and social relations involved in web monetization of online content. The Fiskes’s four modes of coordination (RM’s – relational models) can help us understand how web monetization widgets and counters can express different social relations so maybe different groups and users will choose among them the appropriate ones for their mission.

Web monetization could support sharing, ranking and pricing of content (tribal, hierarchical or market relations between the content makers and different stakeholders). How can counters support these different relations/functions? There are several functions of the payments that we can make visible with the counter:

tip/gift without expecting anything in return: counter performing the generosity of content maker/stakeholder? - matter of tribute and loyalty, gesture, tradition: counter - showing what a group of users likes & comparing loyalty?
balanced, quid-pro-quo exchange: counter comparing what you give/gain from the community?
sell and purchase at market rates: counter offering something in exchange as a way to support interaction? market with comments and quotes? Better image quality? Good examples that show how these functions are often hybrid are bits and subs donations on Twitch: they are gifts and tips but also quid-pro-quo relations often expressed and supported by the market of these Twitch counters. Maybe Coil/webmonetization needs such page with various counters people can use to support different community or one to one interactions?

Excellent summary of existing/possible models of content monetization by Olive Sauter useful for further discussions, we will try to integrate this in our research.

Effect of Monetization Visibility on User Behavior - Report #1

Denisa Reshef Kera — Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:46:09 +0000

Update

Our team is curious about the use of webmonetization counters & visibility of the micropayments, effects of the transparency of the “monetization” on the user’s level of attention, interest, retention and sense of community.
In general, counters and trackers communicate:

how much money we pay (how much we are paid)
how much time we spend on a content
number of users watching/supporting the content

Initial questions

Should webmonetization remain frictionless and invisible?
How does the visibility of money/time/visitors affect the interaction?
How does it influence the willingness to join, pay, support, contribute?
Where/when should we use counters/trackers?
What else could counters communicate and make visible?
Should content creators show the micropayment counter and communicate how much money has been streamed to their content? Does showing how much money they’ve made of their content improve user retention and experience?

Goals

Study the effects of micropayment counter visibility.
UX challenges of sharing information of payment streams.
Improve the design and utilization of the webmonetization counters.
Define the future design challenges of interaction over micropayment counters & trackers.

Activities

We are keeping a diary of experiences with webmonetized counters and design ideas on how to use them. We also conducted first survey with non-Coil users exploring expectations surrounding paid content. We are using Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics to reach non-Coil public.
In this first phase we plan to interview micropayment users to map the experience and use of existing counters and trackers, also conduct surveys on how the visibility of various amounts on the counter influences the decision to support the content creator or join the community. If you have any feedback on this, please, contact us.

In the second phase, we want to conduct more focused experiments based on the surveys and interviews.
In the third, exploratory (speculative) phase, we will work with ideas for future counters supporting various UX ideas.

Preliminary ideas, new questions etc.

We are collecting different counters and trackers and we would like to know how/why people use them. We follow two: PayTracker, Akita.
How important is for the users to use counters, trackers, check their Coil extension, Uphold account etc.? What is the main motivation?
Frictionless design (invisibility) of webmonetization x possibility to tip and make more active decision on the distribution of the money in the pool?
Strange uses of counters beyond the QS tracking of how much time and money someone spends on various content X visibility of the counters supporting a sense of community, pool of data/money, distribution?