>> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy?
> I want good creators compensated for good stories.
I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.
> I want good creators compensated for good stories.
So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.
> $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population.
Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, subjectively it'll feel that way to most people. But there are many out there who have a subscription for $5 a month where they consume none of the content.
But I just pulled the price $1 out of my ass. $0.20, then? The Economist seems to cost $79 per year. If you charge $0.20 per article that's order of one article per day. And most people would not even be interested in one of their articles per week.
Then tomorrow they can spend $0.20 at FT for another article, and so on. And at the end of the year, $79 has been sent to actual journalism, and the customer has received value.
Now this potential customer just consumes nothing. Or worse: Twitter.
> Stupidity is freedom as well.
Differential pricing too. It annoys me that I'm not charged $1 per Economist article, since I am willing to pay.
>I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.
Okay, I can still answer a question, especially if the framing is bad.
>So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.
We don't get to choose how we pay for stuff. That's part of the deal. Maybe I want a slice of bread but I often need to buy a loaf. Maybe I want a bottle of ketchup but Costco only sells 2 giant vats.
Again, blame Mastercard/Visa for your model not being popular. I mentioned as such in the previous response. You may have chosen a dollar arbitrarily, but you were kind of correct about that cost if we're talking per article purchases.
> I want good creators compensated for good stories.
I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.
> I want good creators compensated for good stories.
So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.
> $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population.
Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, subjectively it'll feel that way to most people. But there are many out there who have a subscription for $5 a month where they consume none of the content.
But I just pulled the price $1 out of my ass. $0.20, then? The Economist seems to cost $79 per year. If you charge $0.20 per article that's order of one article per day. And most people would not even be interested in one of their articles per week.
Then tomorrow they can spend $0.20 at FT for another article, and so on. And at the end of the year, $79 has been sent to actual journalism, and the customer has received value.
Now this potential customer just consumes nothing. Or worse: Twitter.
> Stupidity is freedom as well.
Differential pricing too. It annoys me that I'm not charged $1 per Economist article, since I am willing to pay.