3 ms·
I'm intrigued by this response because, as others have mentioned, there is nothing inherently wrong with charging for content. People do it all of the time. We
by brandon272 17y ago
I'm intrigued by this response because, as others have mentioned, there is nothing inherently wrong with charging for content. People do it all of the time. We all need to make a living somehow, right?
I think one mistake that may have been made in this case, and others may disagree with me, is that there was (as far as I know) no disclaimer about the content not being free forever. I think some people stumble upon a resource like Mixergy, see it's free, and get used to it being free. And once the owner of the content decides to start charging for access, it feels as though something has been taken away.
While I realize that it probably isn't rational to think that way, I think that many people do engage in that kind of thought process. And I wonder if Andrew would still have received this kind of response if he had let his users know up front that he had intended to eventually switch to a pay-for-viewing model.
- greyman 17y agoAs I understood the staunch's complaint, it was not primary about "it's wrong to charge for content". Obviously, it is not wrong in and of itself. What is probably not 100% kosher is that you first create a service for free, then thanks to this property of being free people would promote you and give other forms of help for free, and then you switch to a pay model. That's exactly "bait and switch," as it was mentioned above. The equivalent in the real world would be, that I will start to build a house where people can sleep for free as a public service, that will attract volunteers to help me build that, and then after some time I remake it into a hotel...
- brandon272 17y agoThat's true. I suppose when you factor in all of the free promotion and help under the guise of a free service, it starts to look a little more unseemly.