Rayt it! - Our Revenue-Generating Business Model

Shauna Benson

Isaac Henderson — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:41:18 -0300

z7br3j7vr1fnu6eq

Jamie Blankenship

Elena Stanton — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:58:22 -0300

z7br3j7vr1fnu6eq

a little safer

Joe Solomon — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:47:00 -0400

Dossy - I agree, this business model definitely treads dangerous ground. Let's see if we can make it a bit "safer."

For starters, individuals can use Rayt for free as much as they want. We would only charge a fee for organizations - which would be quite affordable and would involve differently priced packages to serve different needs.

Rayt would also provide a free package for smaller organizations.

We may also want to consider just charging organizations to be "featured" on our site. This would mean that any organization could use Rayt and we could still generate revenue by rotating featured sites on our homepage.

Also, if we go the route of advertising, we could charge nonprofits for removing our ads from their campaign page. This is another premium feature that would still enable any organization to use Rayt. GoPetition.com uses this method and it seems to work quite well.

We might also want to charge for "support" but it's not like integrating Rayt would be proprietary - with a little patience and a couple point and click skills any group could set up their own Rayt campaign.

How does that sound?

This

Dossy Shiobara — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:36:15 -0400

This revenue model treads dangerously on the ground of "power in the hands of the wealthy," which is exactly what Rayt--or at least, "democraticizing the Internet"--purports to undo.

Would Rayt prevent a third-party from organizing a Rayt-based PR campaign, where they ensure positive propaganda is the most highly rated messages that appear on their websites as Rayt comments? How can even a relatively wealthy non-profit compete with the commercial interests of a large corporate entity?

Perhaps you should re-think that business model.