, we're over $100 now! I feel much better. Even if no one else buys a ticket, I'll feel like it was worth doing.
I didn't want to have to shill it as much as I did, but actually, it was a good excuse for a newsbox, as I was three months overdue for one.
the Siliconopolitan wrote:A little from column A, a little from column B.
Ah, don't tell me that, you'll make me feel guilty!
Gav wrote:An auction might be more effective, and I'm not terribly fond of raffles myself. BUT in an auction I'd be outbit almost immediately, I'm sure, so in the raffle I actually have a chance at scoring some genuine Bleuelart. And the randomness appeals to me, since it seems nicely in line with Agnostica -- that doesn't help you rake in the cash though.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I would support the idea of an auction over a raffle, especially considering webcomic readership is >50% students. With an auction, you only get money from a single person, which limits the amount you can collect. But of course, with a raffle, only one person "wins" and everyone else gets nothing for their money, which is bad, but it brings it within financial range of everyone. That's why I figured a compromise would be to make sure everyoone got something for their money.
It's an interesting question though: Which would have made more money, an auction or a raffle? I figured the raffle was the best best with my audience, but the equation depends on how many people are interested and how much money they are willing to spend. If only, say, 20 people are interested enough to spend $5, but two of them are willing to bid up to $200, then the auction is the better bet. But if no one will put in more than $50, then the raffle is the better bet.
Gav wrote:I know your Nukeeswork and I've seen your other stuff, so I don't have a problem with this. Saner people prob'ly do, as you point out.
Yeah, and it's a mistake to ask the forum people these questions, who obviously have a greater interest in Nukees. The trick is to figure out what will sell to the masses.
Gav wrote:Even had it been costeffective I couldn't picture myself buying just one ticket then.
Well, that just lends more support to the idea. If I had done a $1 raffle, then I might have had a lot of people buying five tickets or more, as well as people buying $1 tickets.
Suddenly, I want to be a psych major and study these things. Like, what would happen if I held a raffle (assuming the Paypal issues don't get in the way), in which you could bid as little as a penny, versus a raffle with a $1 or $5 entry fee? Would people bid more, because they are now consciously thinking about exactly how much they want to spend, versus their odds? Or would you get a whole lot of penny bids, from people who just want a finite chance, no matter how small?
Entities such as the lottery would suggest the latter. People are far more likely to take the "low odds, high payoff" route than the "reasonable odds, medium payoff" route?
But what if, then, you assigned some kind of increasing weighting function to the amount you spend? Like, your chances of winning go up as the square of the amount you spend on your ticket?
Thus, if you put in $10, you'd have a four times higher chance to win than someone who put in $5. And a million times the odds of someone who put in a penny?
Would that encourage people to spend more? Or is the illogical "low odds, high payoff" drive stronger in the human psyche? Or would no one want to play at all, figuring that it would only take one guy with deep pockets to sway the whole thing?
Surely, some psych student somewhere has done this study...