I am wondering if anyone has any real idea about the effectiveness of donateware, and how it compares to the effectiveness of shareware. I haven''t found much hard data on this. To be clear on what I am talking about, shareware for the purposes of this thread is software that is available free for evaluation, but payment is expected and enforced through systems such as registration keys. Donateware is provided free for unlimited use and there is no legal obligation to purchase the product if you use it, however it is expected that if you enjoy the product and can afford to do so, that you donate cash and maybe get a minor reward in return (some extra little feature or something) as a thank you. Trillian (http://www.trillian.cc) is an example of the latter. With so much freeware and open source out there, shareware doesn''t seem as attractive as it used to be, especially for software that appeals to a large group of people and could really benefit from a large userbase, but is not essential enough that nearly as many people would use it if it cost money (once again, Trillian is an example of this). On the other hand, is this sort of honor system something the Internet can handle at this point, when the majority of users have become so accustomed to receiving large amounts of entertainment for free (legally and illegally)? Does anyone have personal experiences with either model?

I''m kind of looking at numbers (rough ones of course), a ratio actually. Like let''s say 1000 people try your software and decide to use it daily and like it, how many is it reasonable to expect would actually donate? 1? 5? 10?

The way I am seeing it right now, shareware has a much higher ratio of "users paid : total amount of users", but donateware has a significant advantage of developing product popularity due to people being much more willing to use and spread the word about free software. My theory is that, at least with certain types of products, the increase in total amount of users as a result of the popularity of the product might outweigh the smaller ratio of paying users and possibly result in greater product success. Unfortunately I have nothing to back this up with other than theoritical discussion and I am currently in search of more solid data.

In the case of donate ware, people always assume that other people will donate and they don''t have to. If your expecting to make any decent amount of money from your software donateware is probably not the way to go.

If you expect to make money from your software shareware is probably the way to go. If you don''t care about the money then donateware or freeware are probably your best bets.

If you sold 250,000 copies and only made $50,000 via shareware, I''d say your expenses are a bit too high. More likely, you''d sell 5000 copies to make $50,000, and that''s if your only netting $10 a copy (after expenses and taxes).

Mark

I don''t like donationware. Here''s why...

With shareware, or even retail, products, the purchase is an *exchange*. You are giving your cash, and you''re getting a product in return. Value for value, and both sides of the transaction came out ahead, or at least even.

With donation-based "selling", there is no exchange, or, at best, there are no *rules* for the exchange. There is no buyer, no seller. Instead you have someone offering something, ostensibly for "free", but then insisting that you "owe" him for the free item. Like he''s trying to "guilt" you into supporting his continued efforts. Meanwhile, the non-buyer is rationalizing that if the product were any good, the non-seller would be selling it normally.

Or to put it more cynically:

Buyers want donationware because they figure they can get something for nothing. They don''t plan on "donating" if they don''t have to. Why should they? The guy is probably making a bundle, they figure, off stupid people who just give him money.

Sellers want donationware because they figure they can convince someone that their product is worth more than it actually is, free of market constraints. Sure, it only cost $5 to make, and $10 would be a reasonable price, they say, but if someone really likes it, they could get more...much more.

It''s a lose-lose proposition, with each side figuring the other is trying to rip him off, and knowing that if any exchange happens at all, that someone probably *did* get ripped off.

What''s the point? Just join the market economy, attach a price tag, and move on.

DavidRM
Samu Games

I thought it said donut-ware, so while the page was loading I was tring to work out how that would work.

This is an age old discussion, I have the link at home (not here) but there was a study done on crippleware vs naggware a while back, I guess this is kind of the same. The results were that crippleware really encouraged people to pay. He stated that most people were honest, but given the opportunity to not pay then they would not.

You may see the arguement that WINAMP''s dev team are millionairs, through donations, but they I am sure, are an exception, they filled a niche and have tens/ hundreds of millions of users, so they can pull it off, we on the other hand with 10k/20k/30k downloads wont be able to pull in that kind of cash without prompting/annoying the users to pay.

People *say* a lot of things. For instance, they told McDonald''s that they would definitely buy a lean hamburger if one was available. Of *course* they would say that...they''re *supposed* to want to eat healthy. Actual results of the McLean, though, were very disappointing. Getting people who *said* they would buy a leaner, healthier hamburger to actually *do* it proved almost impossible.

The same holds for "donationware". The number of people who *say* they will pay for the software (eventually) vastly outnumbers the ones who do--except in very rare circumstances.

Here''s another little anecdote:

Most people by now are familiar with the co-pay concept of HMOs and other health insurance plans. You go to the doctor, you pay $10 (or whatever), and your insurance pays the rest.

But here''s the catch: With an HMO/managed care setup, your insurance has already paid your doctor for your visit. In fact, your "primary care physician" gets paid a monthly "capitation" fee for you whether you visit or not. So no co-pay is even necessary. And in the very early days of HMO''s, no co-pay was charged.

But without the co-pay, with a doctor visit being "free", people started going to the doctor for EVERYTHING...slight cough, stubbed toe, minor scratches and cruises, everything.

So co-pays were invented. To force people to *think* before they went to the doctor. To attach a cost, however small, the actual visit.

And it worked. People suddenly remembered how to apply ointments and put on band-aids.

How does this apply to shareware vs donationware? I''m not entirely sure...

But it does indicate that people have odd notions of what "free" means, and how they will behave differently if they think something is free, and rationalize their behavior.

DavidRM
Samu Games