Pennies for Our Thoughts (Cent-Up)

cent-up symbolIf you look at the bottom of this post or any post on this blog, whether on the home page or in “single post” view, you will now find a Cent-Up icon next to a counter bubble, of a familiar type, except that it counts cents, as in “pennies,” not “likes” or “hits” or other typical internet quanta. Before I go any further, however, the easiest way for you, dear reader, to make what I’m discussing clearer might be just to click on this link:

I’ll have practical details in a separate “Monetization” piece focusing on installing Cent-Up for open source WordPress, but here’s how it works in brief: After getting approved as a Cent-Up “publisher” (applicants are reviewed for possible evildoing, and somehow I passed), a blogger need only add a teensy bit of code by one of several different simple methods, and posts will automatically (by Javascript) display Cent-Up’s monetary “Like.” As for readers, after a one-time sign-up, they will be able to put their money where their eyeballs are, as little as a few cents at a time, by clicking the button wherever it appears on whoever’s site it turns up for them. Cent-Up collects the proceeds, takes 10%, and divides the rest 50-50 between the author and one of (as of this writing) “seven great charities” serving “public radio, art for people with disabilities, music education, fighting sex trafficking, breast cancer, education access, and helping impoverished women.”

The Charity Link

As for the charities themselves, Cent-Up explains its approach as follows:

To avoid diluting the power of the CentUp community, we’re going to start with a select few charities that range in focus. As CentUp grows, so will the number of non-profits that you can support. If you have a suggestion for a national non-profit that we should consider, please let us know.

The first obvious question, not to be too brutal about it, is why bother with the charities at all? Isn’t fair payment for creative work a worthy cause, too?

I first took a look at Cent-Up without thinking of charity, and, if a non-charitable Cent-Up were available, I’d have been interested in giving it a try. Yet I also think that Cent-Up’s connection to charity may help in overcoming a key impediment for previous attempts at micro-payment implementation, an idea older than the World Wide Web itself, in a benign variation on the classic confidence game: The appeal of “doing good” may encourage both user and blogger-publisher to overcome resistances, since a good reason for the former to sign up and give, and for the latter to come right out and ask, will be to help others verifiably in need.

It may be that the Cent-Uppers further hope and believe that mixing third-party charity with direct support will have a positive effect on the latter, as research on freeware and shareware distribution has sometimes shown. In other words, my willingness to give $10 to my favorite charity may spill over into a willingness to give $10 to an author, when without the charitable example I’d just have thrown her $5, if I’d bothered at all.

pencils of promiseI chose “Pencils of Promise.” You can read about it at the link. If you click my Cent-Up button, you can tell yourself you’re giving me an “attaboy” or you can tell yourself you’re helping cute kids get lurnin, or you can tell yourself you’re doing both, whichever you prefer, every time you click.

Who other than a weird ultra-Scrooge and anti-blogger could have a problem with that?

No one, fersure. Still, I wonder if over time any advantages of the charity-link will decrease, and potentially reverse: Eventually, users may see themselves as simply dividing their free and finite capital. In other words if “non-dilution” is good for Cent-Up, why isn’t it good for me?

Being forced to offer a donation to a cause chosen by someone else may remain a further marginal disincentive, no matter how attractive and worthy poor children, breast cancer victims, and public radio are as causes: I have nothing against any of Cent-Up’s pre-designated charities, but the truth is they do not happen to be causes I would immediately think of supporting, and my own resources are decidedly limited.

I’d also prefer a Cent-Up that took a smaller piece of the action for itself, under the assumption that it would someday compete with the giants of payment processing. I’d like to see Cent-Up expand its list of charities to include ecological and animal welfare causes – because Earth-alienated internetters including me are suckers for nature – and I think there are other causes that obviously would help round out their offering. I’d like to see users given the option to divide their contributions differently if they want to.

Yet I finally decided that these are quibbles, especially in relation to a small company founded in 2012 and apparently still in its infancy. The 10% that Cent-Up takes is more than Paypal takes under its business-only micro-payment option, or than Google takes for its Digital Wallet, but it’s not radically more. As for the rest, to adjust Cent-Up’s take of overall site proceeds, or the proportion that goes to charity, one easy thing to do among others would be to provide a direct donation link apart from Cent-Up’s, but proudly displayed along with it. Likewise, if I want to help out stray dogs or an anismistic mission other than my own, I can put up a badge or badges for them, too, and let the users set proportions.

Whatever I come up with for myself, I very strongly suspect that, however Cent-Up develops, its founders are not going to get rich just off my blog. I also suspect that someone someday is going to open up micropyaments for a critical mass of users, and maybe in the meantime find a way for more writers and other creators to support themselves. Among competitors Flattr, based in Sweden, has adopted a model that’s freer in some ways, more rigid in others. TinyPass, which recently absorbed the micropayment service Swishu, and which handles a range of content-dripping and paywalling services (including for blogging superstar Andrew Sullivan as well as for larger sites), also has a chance to take the space over. There are, as already noted, huge-footed others that have also been eyeing the niche from the other direction.

So, give in already…

Since I think Cent-Up at least has its heart in the right place, I’m happy to give it my micro-help, and I urge you to offer it yours: Cent-Up gives you 100 Cents to start with – Free Money! It expects you later to replenish the account in $10 increments if you want to keep on using it (and it also waits for its publishers to accumulate at least $100 before disbursing anything to them), but it doesn’t cost anything to check it out…

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Posts in this series

0 comments on “Pennies for Our Thoughts (Cent-Up)

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    2 Pings/Trackbacks for "Pennies for Our Thoughts (Cent-Up)"
    1. […] techniques. You can threat that as a promise or a threat! In the meantime, I still think that Cent-Up is a worthy alternative, and something y’all should get in the habit of using, at least to […]

    2. […] I do not aim at this blog for quantity over quality. I will remove comments that I deem offensive or insulting, or that I find indistinguishable from “comment spam” (which often takes the form of praise, usually garbled and generic), though I do I regret that more visitors – whose numbers I track via site statistics – do not pause to offer their thoughts even briefly, or to email them to me if too shy to comment in the threads. I am grateful to the visitors who, sometimes without commenting or explaining themselves, have given donations (though I’m beginning to wonder whether you all will ever start Cent-Upping). […]

    Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



    Noted & Quoted

    TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

    For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

    The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

    Comment →

    Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

    Comment →

    [E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

    Comment →
    CK's WP Plugins


    Extraordinary Comments

    CK's WP Plugins