More Bandwidth and Revenue Needed

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:16 pm

hmm this might be a good idea and encourage some to download (and give us dev people something to work on >.>) but maybe set up a priority system where donating members get bandwidth priority over those who don't. cap the bandwidth for non donators and thus encourages people to donate. i don't know how to implement it though.

Pwolf

ps: yea, i'm a leecher also. i'll probably donate sooner then i was expecting (<i>trying</i> to get a job so i can afford it) but i think i can spare a few $$ for the cause

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:34 pm

I second the idea for a Priority Queue for downloading where donating members get higher priority than non-donating one. Bandwidth caps are also a good idea. The content is available either way, so caps are more arguably related to bandwidth useage.

godix · Post by **godix** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:36 pm

I'd support Zarx idea of capping download speed. That isn't saying 'pay money to get the vids' it's saying 'pay money to get the vids QUICKLY'. The videos are still avalable to anyone but donation would have it's benefits.

Another possability to help lower demand is to place more focus of direct/indirect links. Perhaps a brief message on the upload screen explaining why, if possible, it would be better to do an indirect/direct link instead of local. You could even specifically point out one advantage if is the creator ever decides they no longer want the file avalable then they have the control do stop distributing it which local does not allow.

As far as increasing donation rate, this post alone might help. As a non-donator myself I know I've quickly gotten to the point where 'oh, it's ALWAYS asking for money. They aren't in real need, this is just their standard form' so increasing the number of donation pages I have to click through doesn't really increase the odds I'll donate since I've long since mentally blocked them. Now that I've read this topic and realize there's a more immediate need than usual I'll be sending in a donation shortly. Chances are I'm not the only one but we'll have to see.

Kusoyaro · Post by **Kusoyaro** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:45 pm

godix wrote: place more focus of direct/indirect links. Perhaps a brief message on the upload screen explaining why, if possible, it would be better to do an indirect/direct link instead of local. You could even specifically point out one advantage if is the creator ever decides they no longer want the file avalable then they have the control do stop distributing it which local does not allow.

I don't think the aim here is to discourage people from using the server.

kitsunebeolnet · Post by **kitsunebeolnet** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:51 pm

This was intended to be a joke, but the more I thought about it, the better it sounded...

How about actually 'selling' banners? $1 buys you a 'point' or 'vote' toward your banner. $90 completely buys your banner. Of course, banners would still be subject to acceptance rules for appropriate content.
members could 'bank' points toward a banner until they choose to use their points BEFORE a vote is taken. They would get a 'XX' yes vote head start unless they had the required 90 points to automatically 'sell' their banner. Once the points are designated toward a banner, they are used. Period.

Pro - It avoids the stigma of 'selling' AMVs.

The biggest drawback (of several, I admit) is that those who already donate might be inclined to divert their funds toward such a program.

This isn't intended to solve all money woes, but with the ego-game of banner acceptance, may be worth persuing.

anneke · Post by **anneke** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:54 pm

I always thought the site was to be a LIST / DATABASE of all AMVs created. Not the location to get all the AMVs out there. I wouldn't mind/care if a-m-v.org stopped offering downloads of AMVs, as long as the database/listing is still around.

As for generating funds... (Well I have no plans to donate now or in the future...as to why...I rather not get into that.) However limiting the non-donators downloads would be a great incentitive to get donations. Limit thier bandwidth, limit the number of videos they can download a month or a day or whatever. Maybe make it so that only donators can download on all days, while non-donators only can download on even days or just weekends or between specific hours...etc...

I think looking into people's download habits may help to determine a way to generate more donations. I do alot of searchs (as I'm looking to see if an idea I have has been done or not), but I rarely download videos. Limiting my bandwidth or how many videos I could download would not bother me much, and thus not likely to get me to donate. The only reason I've considered to donate is to make those annoying requests for donations to go away when I'm doing my searchs.

Limiting Downloads to payed donators should be done. I think you would have the support of the AMV community in doing so. Non-donators would still be able to get videos that are directly or indirectly linked. Which then puts more bandwidth on AMV creators who have videos hosted off of a-m-v.org. Those creators would then want to urge people to donate as well, to reduce the bandwidth they are getting hit with.

To get people to donate you have to have something they want to pay for. If your giving them the AMVs for free, they are not likely to pay for them. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?

Anneke

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:56 pm

Hey,

godix wrote:Another possability to help lower demand is to place more focus of direct/indirect links. Perhaps a brief message on the upload screen explaining why, if possible, it would be better to do an indirect/direct link instead of local. You could even specifically point out one advantage if is the creator ever decides they no longer want the file avalable then they have the control do stop distributing it which local does not allow.

If someone is willing to pay $5 to $10 a month ($60-$120/year) hosting their own videos and deal with bandwidth caps and ISPs kicking out their content due to overuse and such, why not donate that to the Org instead and have none of those problems?

The things with the number of members we have here, our costs are actually really low. If we got $10 from each person who downloaded a local video within the last 24 hours, we would have enough to run this site for an entire year, literally, with enough leftovers to get a new quad dual core server. This is the kind of low cost per member the site has. We just need to somehow get a few lazy members to help somehow each month.

Phade.

Kusoyaro · Post by **Kusoyaro** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:57 pm

kitsunebeolnet wrote:How about actually 'selling' banners?

Selling banners for the most part wouldn't be any better than selling AMVs, since most people are using copyrighted images in their banners.

SuperFusion · Post by **SuperFusion** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:59 pm

The whole thing about limit non-donators to 20kbs download speed, the 56k'ers won't be affected so something else like limiting downloads sounds like a good idea(like others have sugessted).

kitsunebeolnet · Post by **kitsunebeolnet** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:59 pm

Kusoyaro wrote:
kitsunebeolnet wrote:How about actually 'selling' banners?
Selling banners for the most part wouldn't be any better than selling AMVs, since most people are using copyrighted images in their banners.

I stand corrected...lets stick to the concept of selling 'points' then.