Is anyone here registered on the Something Awful forums? Over there, a one time fee is charged per account to cover the (high) hosting costs and is also effective at keeping out trolls. SA has been doing since 2001 but even today, nearly every other site has free account creation and commercial ones tend to make money only off advertising.
If you want to make money off a site that hosts user content and most of your target users are adequately wealthy, you might want to consider copying something awful and charging a one time fee per account.
Consider YouTube, an interresting experiment that didn't work. Many of us know that YouTube comments are often posted to low standards, but YouTube is also treated as a dumping ground, with lots of worthless videos some of which violate copyright. But did any of you know that YouTube costs more to run than it earns? And what it earns, as far as I know, is earned off advertising. If the founders had copied something awful and charged a one time fee per account and additional channel, then content to noise ratio would be much higher, especially be conservative standards, and they would earn a higher percentage of their running costs.
Futhermore, subscription to all YouTube channels is also free. Even if you monetise off your videos, you earn money from advertising displayed alongside your videos, not from subscription fees. If one has to pay to subscribe to offline radio and television stations, why should subscription to a YouTube channel still be free if the maintainer of the channel monetises off it?
Another benefit is that fewer ads would be displayed to logged in users.
If you want to make money off a site that hosts user content and most of your target users are adequately wealthy, you might want to consider copying something awful and charging a one time fee per account.
Consider YouTube, an interresting experiment that didn't work. Many of us know that YouTube comments are often posted to low standards, but YouTube is also treated as a dumping ground, with lots of worthless videos some of which violate copyright. But did any of you know that YouTube costs more to run than it earns? And what it earns, as far as I know, is earned off advertising. If the founders had copied something awful and charged a one time fee per account and additional channel, then content to noise ratio would be much higher, especially be conservative standards, and they would earn a higher percentage of their running costs.
Futhermore, subscription to all YouTube channels is also free. Even if you monetise off your videos, you earn money from advertising displayed alongside your videos, not from subscription fees. If one has to pay to subscribe to offline radio and television stations, why should subscription to a YouTube channel still be free if the maintainer of the channel monetises off it?
Another benefit is that fewer ads would be displayed to logged in users.