I’d like to share my thoughts on the current GPT Store and its monetization structure, particularly regarding the opportunities for individual GPT monetization beyond the existing ChatGPT subscription model.
The Current Scenario: As it stands, the GPT Store caters primarily to ChatGPT subscribers, offering access to a general-purpose GPT model. While this model serves a broad range of needs, it may not be the most efficient or cost-effective solution for users with specific requirements.
My Proposal: Custom GPT Monetization and Revenue Sharing: I propose that OpenAI should allow creators to develop and monetize their custom GPT models. This approach would enable creators like myself to offer specialized GPT services at a more accessible price point, tailored to specific user needs. For instance, I could charge $5 or $6 for access to a custom GPT I develop, catering to a niche audience.
Revenue Sharing Model: A revenue-sharing model could be implemented, where OpenAI shares a 35% of the revenue generated by these custom GPTs to the GPT creators. This model not only incentivizes creators but also opens a new revenue stream for OpenAI.
Hypothetical Use Case: Consider a custom GPT developed for news seekers, aggregating news from various sources. While similar features might be available to ChatGPT subscribers at $20 per month, my custom GPT could offer this service at $1.99 per month. This lower price point could attract a significantly larger user base. Under the proposed revenue share of 35%, I would earn $0.70 per subscription, with the remainder going to OpenAI.
Benefits:
Diverse Offerings: Users would have access to a variety of custom GPTs, each tailored to different needs.
Affordability: Lower prices for specific services would make advanced AI more accessible to a broader audience.
Innovation and Competition: This model encourages creators to innovate and compete, leading to better and more diverse AI applications.
Revenue Generation: Both OpenAI and creators stand to benefit financially from this model.
In conclusion, by adopting a custom GPT monetization and revenue-sharing model, OpenAI could foster a more diverse, innovative, and financially rewarding ecosystem for both itself and GPT creators. This approach addresses specific user needs while also opening up new business opportunities.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback on this proposal.
I think that’s the general idea behind the plug-in marketplace proposed model.
Yes the community would benefit tremendously from this. Open AI would gain even more subscribers because of engagement and stickiness. Custom Gpt‘s are useful but take a long time to build/perfect, and I have to put my work on hold while I create custom Gpt’s for use.
What I recommend you do, is you reconsider your revenue share since Apple takes a standard 30 percent commission rate for App Store transactions and regular subscriptions. I think it’s a fair model if we could keep up to 70% and OpenAI took 30%.
That’s very convenient , but the ai maintainance and training cost is usually very high for open ai. So i thought this will belp open ai. But yeah if we are getting rewarded more for our work, what else we want.
Lets see how they roll out the model for gpt store and its monetization.
Would love to show you a commercial solution that doesn’t conflict with Open AI, is built on top of Open AI but dedicated for professional prompt development.
Hi N2U, thanks for the comment. Who would we best talk to about our platform?
It is not a “revenue-share” model and it was not designed for GPTs but general Prompts that run through our platform, connected to the GPT-4 API.
We developed a fully functional commerce platform for the new prompt economy.
Thanks for your advise.
Please act as my guide to Open AI partner managers.
We created a Gen-AI platform for professional prompt developers, built on top of GPT-4, allowing prompt engineers to develop, sell and service high productivity prompts for businesses.
By doing so, we solved some of the bigger problems with Gen-AI in businesses:
Prompt IP Protection for recurring revenue,
Visible prompt productivity gain,
Setup your custom public & private libraries,
Safe & independent Prompt execution.
Zero subscription model for rapid scaling.
Prompt developer use our platform to develop and test their prompts. Then they decide how much the prompt should cost per usage. Then they put it on our prompt library and users can use it and pay per use.
We take a margin on the transaction.
I want you to help me assess the situation and make sure this is OK what we are doing and even in the interest of Open AI.
