4 ms·
What's ironic about it? The only real sources of income most sites now have are either ads, donations or subscriptions. Ads are often intrusive and usually make
by orbat 9y ago
What's ironic about it? The only real sources of income most sites now have are either ads, donations or subscriptions. Ads are often intrusive and usually make the site much heavier to load, donations don't usually work very well, and people are loath to pay for subscriptions either
- pcl 9y agoReading the summaries posted in this thread, the article describes an economic equilibrium in which a lower per-ride price structure turns into more demand. Within the tested range, the variables are in equilibrium, and higher per-ride prices don't turn into greater driver revenue. The irony is that the WSJ is effectively (hopefully?) running this same experiment. I don't read non-paywalled WSJ (or Wired etc.) content, because I don't believe in that business model at their price point ($20 / month) but respect their choice to erect barriers to readership [1]. So, the WSJ has effectively chosen to go with a high monthly price, which is the equivalent to Uber's higher per-trip fares. One wonders if the WSJ would make more money with a lower rate plan and a broader audience, either via lower monthly rates or free access for casual readers (with a presumption of later conversion). [1] I do pay for a few other press subscriptions, but all of them allow some level of across-the-board read-as-you-go trials, which I wholeheartedly agree with, or have a lower absolute cost per month, which I can stomach.
- orbat 9y agoAhh, right, now I get your point