Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
"Donationware 2.0" or something like that - opinions wanted
mouser:
The confusion surrounding the concept of donationware and freeware has come up a few times before, and it got me wondering if it might be nice to discuss the idea of formulating a new term with a more precise definition.
Im not wedded to the name, but maybe "Donationware 2.0" is a good working title until we find something better.
So here is what i was thinking by way of a definition, but please do jump in and modify. I'm basically starting off with the things we do here, but that doesn't mean they are the right way, i'm just trying to start us off on the path of coming up with something reasonable.
Donationware 2.0:
* Software or media that puts a strong emphasis on asking the user to make a donation to support the author, while still remaining free of charge should the user choose not to donate (or cannot donate).
* Such software may require a minimum amount of effort on the users part to encourage donating, but this work should not be "prohibitive or overly annoying".
In an attempt to be more specific about this term, the following activities would be considered overly annoying and prohibitive:
1) showing a nag which is removed only on donating.
2) requiring a donation to unlock certain features.
3) showing ads inside the software which are removed only on donating.
However, such software may reasonably do the following:
1) Require the person to sign up to receive the full version, or a license key or download (no email collected may be used for spamming purposes!)
2) Require the person to declare that they have considered donating and decided not to.
3) Require the person to return to download a new version or license key occasionally (no more frequently than once every 6 months)
Summarizing: The software model puts an emphasis on requiring the user to actually consider the act of donating, and perform some action to avoid donating (though not monetary, and not anything that would take more than a few minutes per year). Read my article (https://www.donationcoder.com/Articles/One/index.html) for longer discussion about the motivation and philosophy behind these decisions.
Other issues worth considering:
Should donationware2.0 specify that an author should make all of their software available as a bundle when a user donates?
Should it say that the author can charge for commercial/non-personal/home use? (i would favor this i think)
Should it be able to say that a donation is mandatory, but user can choose the amount, or else indicate that they cannot donate for some real reason?
:feedback:
Josh:
In an attempt to be more specific about this term, the following activities would be considered overly annoying and prohibitive:
1) showing a nag which is removed only on donating.
2) requiring a donation to unlock certain features.
3) showing ads inside the software which are removed only on donating.
-mouser (July 27, 2006, 01:48 PM)
--- End quote ---
With the three things listed here, I agree completely, those are NO-NO's in the donationware industry.
However, such software may reasonably do the following:
1) Require the person to sign up to receive the full version, or a license key or download (no email collected may be used for spamming purposes!)
2) Require the person to declare that they have considered donating and decided not to.
3) Require the person to return to download a new version or license key occasionally (no more frequently than once every 6 months)
-mouser
--- End quote ---
Option 1 is fine, as long as you dont get into the point of nagging like "Are you sure you dont wish to donate", etc.
Option 2, I dont like this idea. Requiring a user state "I do not want to donate" is like forcing them to say "I am too cheap to donate". While this may not be the case in all instances, alot of users never have any intent on donating and requiring them to post to this effect can alienate them because they might not want to post and appear "cheap". Like I said, this isnt always the case, but you do get your users who never have an intent on donating.
Option 3, I believe that once a license is obtained it should be permanent. Requiring the user to acquire a new license, in my opinion, is like using a nag screen "Since you didnt donate, come here and get another license key". Granted, you may only do it once, it can still be considered a nag.
Other issues worth considering:
Should donationware2.0 specify that an author should make all of their software available as a bundle when a user donates?
Should it say that the author can charge for commercial/non-personal/home use? (i would favor this i think)
Should it be able to say that a donation is mandatory, but user can choose the amount, or else indicate that they cannot donate for some real reason?
-mouser
--- End quote ---
If the software is all offered through one site or portal, then yes, one license key should be used for all products on that site. Otherwise, it gets tedious and can detract from the user deciding to obtain further keys. On note 2, the author should have every right to charge for a more "Feature filled" or a commercial version of the application. Home use/personal use should remain free after all, isnt this the point of donationware? to be free for personal use yet ask for a small donation if you like the work? Donations should NOT be mandatory, that is still requiring the user to pay for the software. Yes, the user can choose the amount, but if its required, some users will likely go elsewhere to find the software they need.
Anyways, thats my thoughts.
nudone:
i go for a donating is mandatory - it's in the title after all - but there is no limit to how small (or large) a donation can be. it is the act of donating that is important, even if it's as low as 1 cent/pence/yourcurrencyhere.
anyone unwilling to make the gesture of donating a completely insignificant amount as 1 cent doesn't really deserve anything in return.
if someone really cannot make a donation they can show their appreciation by composing an email stating why they can't - this would take longer than making an actual donation and would require a greater involvement from the person making the request so that seems like a fair trade off to me.
making the donation mandatory (or a mandatory opt out email) gets the person beyond that first step, beyond their inertia to interact and accept their is someone to thank for the software they are obtaining/using. once that hurdle is overcome i believe most donations would be of a 'fair' monetary amount.
let the software (or whatever it is) be obtainable for free, but only for a limited time period. let the software prompt them towards the end of the 'free' period that they will be required to make a donation within a few days/weeks for the software to continue working and then no one can complain about being conned.
Josh:
i go for a donating is mandatory - it's in the title after all - but there is no limit to how small (or large) a donation can be. it is the act of donating that is important, even if it's as low as 1 cent/pence/yourcurrencyhere.
-nudone (July 27, 2006, 02:13 PM)
--- End quote ---
Making donations MANDATORY sorta defeats the purpose doesnt it? I mean, why not just make it shareware where the user pays what they feel? Donations have always been, and should be, a voluntary thing, in my opinion.
if someone really cannot make a donation they can show their appreciation by composing an email stating why they can't - this would take longer than making an actual donation and would require a greater involvement from the person making the request so that seems like a fair trade off to me.
--- End quote ---
Why should anyone have to explain why? I mean, forcing users to tell why they can't donate is requiring them to get into their personal lives. What if someone really is poor, I dont think that forcing them to say "I am poor" is a good thing to do.
let the software (or whatever it is) be obtainable for free, but only for a limited time period. let the software prompt them towards the end of the 'free' period that they will be required to make a donation within a few days/weeks for the software to continue working and then no one can complain about being conned.
--- End quote ---
Again, this makes it sound like shareware. Shareware is only available for a certain amount of time, after which you have to pay. Even if the user decides the amount, I think this defeats the purpose of Donating.
jgpaiva:
I think that to define a broader concept, there's an error in your definition.
While it does make much sense to specify what not to do (nag screens, way too much work to get the key, etc.), it shouldn't specify what the software may do.
I say this because there's no perfect solution, and while the system on DC looks pretty good, there might be a better soution. So, it should be left to the creator's imagination what to do to encourage the user to donate. (i'm saying this because if it's a good concept, other software creators might adopt it, but if they find a better solution than DC has, it won't be donationware 2.0.)
I'm also for the donation OR e-mail method. There has to be a bigger conscience of the user when downloading software.
That behaviour of downloading software and simply not worrying about who did it or how they did it is incompatible with donationware 2.0.
Making it be too easy (like, "drop me a few lines in the box below and you'll get your key") would make it be just like freeware.
I'm also thinking... How about a survey? When the person comes to get the second key, the percon could be obligated to fill a few questions like "what do you think about the sofware?" or "what made you get the second key", something like that. It might make people think twice about how great the software is, and that possibly the author would deserve a donation from them :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version