Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
SEARCH ENGINE that PAYS YOU | |||||||||||||||||
Google and the other search engines operate all under the same basic model,....he who holds the information (website owner) gets paid for displaying an ad. Why not have a search engine where a user joins,...fills out information to target them better (or not),...they still perform their searches like normal and get the same or better results, BUT,..if the user goes to click on any type of paid advertising, the USER gets a portion of the advertising funds. In other words, have a revenue share model including the actual people who click on the ads. In addition, a USER can provide more detailed information (or not) about themselves thereby creating a click-through that has a potentially higher value. Higher value (provide more info) and you get paid more. Abuse, click fraud etc. can be easily avoided by having certain authentications during the sign up process. Make payments to the users monthly or quarterly and voila....the new search engine has a vested interest customer base with extreme loyalty that disrupts the standard Google business model. Because the process is mainly automated and has limited fixed costs if any, the model becomes self perpetuating. Wouldn't you like it if Google paid YOU each month for YOUR eyeballs versus someone else getting all the funds (or Comcast for that matter)? Isn't YOUR time worth something just for being "exposed" to the advertising? There are many extensions to the idea....cable, wireless, networking etc. Technology would allow this model to exist now, whereas in the past it couldn't because of tracking payments, interaction etc. I'm curious on people's feelings and thoughts about this. Thank you!
Uzurp, Dec 16 2008
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
I click on one of the Google sponsored links about twice a month. If they give me the whole five cents, I've made a dime.
I think it's probably better to just let Google or Yahoo or whomever make the click-money and use the profits to provide better services.
It's just not worth the trouble for such a small amount of money per person.
People could just click on every ad that comes up with no intention of buying anything just so they could get the easy money. One of the biggest advantages of advertising on the internet is the low cost. If the advertisers had to pay everyone that looked at their ads, it would cost them way too much.
@Dwane Anderson: I agree.
Interesting concept. The idea I like, is to think about a sort of value chain from the information 'consumer' to the information 'publisher'. Eacht step, link between, etc. fulfills a step in the total 'connection'. Within SpiriLogic we see the internet as a sort of nearal network and energy (information) passing through connections which come and fades out again (when you have seen the movie 'what the bleep do we know', remember the part were the internals of our brains are visualized (neurons connecting, passing there electicity load, discharging, fading, etc.).
Ok, back to the subject: I agree with Dwane that it must remain interesting for advertisers to advertise. But in a more wholestic view I would say that each 'thing' which contributes in the information value chain should earn a fair amount of... yeah, what actualy? Money? Lets call it 'CommonValue': when you publish information that helps the world, it should as well create value for you. So essentially we agree with the concept, but with the definition of money nowadays and economic system and practical effort to put things in place, it probably will not work. Maybe in the future...Regards,Iwanjka - SpiriLogic