Only a MINORITY of that minority will donate on a consistent basis.
Can we do something like this? For instance, those who donate will be the first to receive testing data via a special subscription?
If funding/lack of donations becomes an problem, it might be best to make membership at the new test result website contingent upon a minimum donation.
I think that option is probably the best way to go about this for a couple of reasons. First, many people are reluctant to voluntarily donate or pay for something they can get for free, and secondly, people don't tend to place much value on things they haven't paid for. If people have to donate something to the program in order to see the test results, the importance of the program itself will have more meaning to them because they have something invested in it.
The more I think about it, the more I think charging for membership is the way to do this. Too many people will be content to reap the benefits while others have to pay for it, and if the program fails due to lack of funding, it won't be a great loss to them.
A subscription model is not consistent with our current strategy. I realize that only a very small minority will regularly donate to support the project. But I am a believer in the power of numbers. If the numbers are big enough, then a very small minority will be all it takes. I want the lab results to reach as many people as possible for two reasons: (1) the viral distribution of the results will lead to even bigger numbers, and (2) the widest distribution will have maximal harm reduction effects.
Of course, there are benefits to a subscription model. If it comes to it, we'll put idealism aside and reconsider our approach.