Flattr is a Sweden-based microdonation provider founded by Peter Sunde and Linus Olsson and launched in March 2010.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr
Also, different countries in Europe solve this problem differently. Some have this system, such as Piano.
The criticism that was made of Kachingle is actually relevant for this whole category of startup. You should read "The Limits Of Tip Jar Journalism":
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/kachin...
There are 3 main problems:
1.) there is an abundance of news sites in English
2.) there are not enough people who want to pay for news
3.) Google takes about 45% of all online global advertising
The situation is different for non-English publications. I know, for instance, there are limited number of fashion/news magazines aimed at women in Poland, and Polish women, all over the world, are willing to pay to support those magazines. So there are 5 or 6 fashion/news magazines in Polish that are doing well.
But in English? There are tens of thousands of such publications and there is not enough money for them all.
Assume registration includes specifying a list of "preferred publishers" (like what aggregated news apps ask on sign up in order to curate your feed)
Add a client side tracker (i.e. browser plugin) with the ability to track the page views on each site.
One of three options:
1) no tracking - split the distribution evenly among your preferred sites
2) offline/batch tracking - at the end of the month, submit an aggregated percentage breakdown of your sites
3) online tracking - sent to the server in real time (i.e. Central scrutiniser)
And if you're really particular about tracking, it could just be an API, and you can write to it whatever data you want to share.
Google contributor basically puts you in the same position advertisers are, you bid to advertise to yourself, and if you win, you don't see any ads :)
1) Google Contributor requires you to whitelist Google ads
2) AFAIK - you will see at least 50% of the ads
I did a back-of-the-envelope-style calculation at one point (I can't recall my source data anymore now though), and basically you'd need to pay something like $120 a month for websites to end up with the same amount of cash as with ads.
I wonder how much such big organizations spend on selling advertising (I'm now conflating with the likes of NYT that has ads in its paper version etc). If one truly went for ad-free, one would of course let all the ad-selling staff go (or let them do something else).
The future will be better very soon.
I'd like the subscription, as you mention too!
What I'd like even more (for voluntary payment) is a subscription that divvies up my monthly 'budget' according to the % of the time I spent on different sites. Say I spend 50% of my browsing time on Nytimes, 30% on HN and 20% on New Yorker, and my monthly allocated budget is $20. Then NYT gets $10, HN gets $6, NYer $4, etc.
Or perhaps, a monthly budget where the money is deducted for subscription sites, per article/time whatever. Once my budget is finished, I see 'normal' web like everyone else does.
I don't really care about ads, but maybe people who don't want to see ads could pay like, 2x as much, etc.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of innovation in this field. Perhaps it's the difficulty of integrating everything in one place?
Edit after reading the comments: Google contributor just removes ads instead of getting you 'special pass' right? Do the site owners get paid for the 'eyeballs' from the subscribers?