[initram]

>we all understand the need for them due to no better monetization strategy for much of the valuable content on the web.

This just isn't true. There are plenty of other monetization schemes on the web that work for different types of content. (Subscriptions, donations, subsidies (both corporate and governmental), patrons, etc.)

>Would love to see this extend to things like online music / video as well

It pretty much already exists in the form of Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Apple Music, etc.

[idanb]

Content creators get effectively zero income / revenues from any of the services you listed. Patreon is attempting to do some cool things there and I think are getting some great results, as are crowdfunding approaches. However, people I know who have gotten syndication of content on any given video platform don't really get much in the way of return unless it's a huge hit - so it's hard to get quality content which is why a lot of those guys are producing exclusive content, or funding it. In terms of music, yeah - artists are making nothing, and the services are making nothing too, but that's a whole different story.

There has been a failure, in my opinion, of successful monetization of valuable content on the net. I don't disagree with you that there are a plethora of monetization schemes that are very effective on the web. However, given the cost of content creation usually content is a loss leader for a separate business model / or business entirely. I think it just leads to crappy content, since now pretty much every article has some kind of agenda and there's little journalism actually taking place. I actually really like Vice for this reason - I think they've found a niche where people are willing to pay for quality content. Same for the Information, which produces terrific journalism and great long form stuff.