Jump to content


Photo

When Making Money on a Magazine Site, Article Tokens are Necessary


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Poll: When Making Money on a Magazine Site, Article Tokens are Necessary

Do you like or would you use the feature of article tokens in order to better manage your monetized site?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:55 PM

Article tokens are tokens that a member uses up when viewing an article. This is the same concept as IP.Download's download tokens where as an admin, you can restrict the number of downloads per day, week, or month.

I am suggesting the same feature for IP.Content. Some admins here might be running a magazine service or just any service where some articles are only available to paid subscribers. In order to stop members from paying for 1 month and viewing all the articles, I suggest implementing viewing restrictions the same as in IP.Downloads.

For example, a member who donated $X to be in a special group is able to view the private articles X amount of times (this is based on the tokens).

Suggestion #2

The following suggestion, in my opinion, is better than the first one above. In this setup, the user is instead prompted a message after clicking on a private article stating "Do you want to use X tokens to unlock this article?" If the user presses the "Yes" button, that user permanently has access to that private article. The user's token count can be reset every day, week, or month just like it is done in IP.Downloads.

The same way IP.Downloads limits leechers who suck up site content, IP.Content should do the same.

Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.


#2 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:59 PM

Also, this fights off against content harvesting. Imagine if you are running a paid tutorial site where you offer private access to tutorials for those who pay $X every month. Wouldn't it be better if you had the ability to stop a few of those bad apples that have the only intention of paying for the first month, harvesting all of your tutorials, pirating it, and on top of that, cancelling and requesting a refund of their subscription 1 hour after purchase?

Even if a member wanted to pirate your tutorials, they would be less inclined to do so because they are limited by IP.Content's restriction system. If you have 500 tutorials and you set your limit to 10 a week, the pirate would have to spend 50 weeks in order to pirate all of your content! And that assumes your content stays at 500 the whole year.

From a business perspective, this is a very smart and useful feature.
  • rbiss likes this

Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.


#3 mat206

mat206

    Advanced Member

  • +Clients
  • 438 posts

Posted 12 October 2011 - 12:44 PM

This is definitely not an IP.Content feature though.. this is a mod type of feature.
  • GreenLinks likes this

#4 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 01:03 PM

This is definitely not an IP.Content feature though.. this is a mod type of feature.


I disagree and think this is a feature IP.Content should integrate considering it can be tied with the use of IP.Nexus to create a profitable subscription based magazine site.

Can IPS chime in whether or not they are considering making this? Then at least modders will know if it's worth making for customers who want to purchase it.

Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.


#5 bfarber

bfarber

    RBT-KS

  • IPS Management
  • 28,575 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:14 AM

It does not seem to have a lot of support to me, and there are a lot of other features/functionality I want to focus on first, so I don't think you're going to see this in the next version.

I can't speak for other future versions.

Brandon Farber
Development Manager / Senior Support

If it sounds like fun, it's not allowed on the bus!

php5_zce_logo_new.gif     

Invision Power Services, Inc.


#6 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 09:10 PM

In that case, can a modder here vouch to make such a mod for IP.Content? You can PM me the price you want to put for your mod publicly, and I can let you know if I will buy it at that rate.

Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.


#7 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 09:26 PM

It does not seem to have a lot of support to me, and there are a lot of other features/functionality I want to focus on first, so I don't think you're going to see this in the next version.

I can't speak for other future versions.


Since it has been ~8 months from your response, please let me know if this can be on your agenda for a 2012 release. :smile: thank you very much for considering this needed feature.

Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.


#8 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:21 PM

Not to be a bother, but I hope you could keep this topic in mind when considering 4.0.

 

My other feautres that might have been overlooked:

 

http://community.inv...atest-products/

http://community.inv...eature-request/

http://community.inv...r-member-group/

http://community.inv...-are-necessary/


Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.


#9 ᴡᴅツ

ᴡᴅツ

    ⊙﹏⊙

  • +Clients
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 23 March 2013 - 07:52 PM

This is definitely not an IP.Content feature though.. this is a mod type of feature.

 

I also wanted to state that IP.Downloads has a similar feature to what I'm requesting here, that being to limit the amount of downloads per day/week/month. I assume this was done to save bandwidth, but it also serves as a great business tool to stop people from scraping the entire subscription based site.

 

All that this feature is asking is to place a "Use 1 token" button on each subscription reserved article so that customers can choose to gain access to the article. I will use a recipe site as an example. Let's say a major recipe based service provides over 5,000 recipes to its users for a low monthly fee of $7. If there was not a piracy deterance mechanism in place, such as having X amount of tokens per month (which costs $7), an unscrupulous user could pay the $7 and scrape the entire site containing over 5,000 recipes.

 

IP.Downloads protects digital based businesses in this regard, but IP.Content does not. There needs to be a way for a business to protect itself if it so desires from such users. Otherwise, the business model is faulty. This is a core feature, and not a mod, seeing the precedance it has in IP.Downloads as well as its commercial nature.

 

P.S.

IP.Nexus should also provide piracy deterrance mechanisms such as watermarking the footer of each purchased PDF with the purchaser's username, email address, and ip address. This would deter non-tech savvy users from trying to share purchased content and would also create an extra step for teh tech savvy who want to share purchased content.


Feature consistency across IP.Downloads and IP.Board for IP.Content

 

 

IPS, please look at the topics I've created regarding feature suggestions. There still are issues that haven't been addressed, as noted above, and the following, as well as this.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users