4 ms·

Was Bloomberg making $35 from ads from my 3 visits to their site per month? If not why do they ask me now for $35?

mlevental 9y ago
it's funny that bloomberg is now trying to charge for something that's basically content marketing for its terminals.
quakenul 9y ago
Welcome to the economics of ad free websites (for now, at least). A large percentage of people simply will not pay for website access, no matter how low the price. So you get your money from those who do, who value the service so highly that parting with it would be huge pain point for them, and, so Bloomberg assumes probably after extensive surveys, those who feel that way about their publication, will likely have 35$/month to spare for the privilege.
- d2p 9y ago
  Just because a large percentage won't pay doesn't mean that putting the price high will maximise income. It's possible that at $10/month they'd get 5x the signups. That said, increasing prices is hard; reducing is easy. If you're trying to figure out sweet spot for max revenue is it probably makes sense to start high and slowly reduce it until you find it. If you're on a rolling monthly payment and decrease everyones prices together, nobody will get upset.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    The biggest hurdle is not price elasticity between getting someone to pay $10 versus $35, it's getting people to pay anything instead of something. Look at the App Store as an example and how hard it is to get people to pay $1. Besides the people who are willing to pay are by definition people who are willing to spend money - the same demographic that advertisers covet the most. Meaning they can't target their best customers for advertising.
    - d2p 9y ago
      > The biggest hurdle is not price elasticity between getting someone to pay $10 versus $35, it's getting people to pay anything instead of something. I'm not doubting that's tough; but it's significantly easier to get someone to pay $1/month than $35/month. People aren't completely stupid; they won't just blindly pay any amount just because they'd decided they'd pay something. Like I said though; if I was making this decision, I'd start high.
  - lajhsdfkl 9y ago
    > It's possible that at $10/month they'd get 5x the signups. I highly doubt it. Also, while it is possible that the people at bloomberg are so incompetent that they did not consider how to maximize their profits, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they did.
    - d2p 9y ago
      > I highly doubt it. I never said it was likely, just possible. And I wouldn't question the incompetence of anyone these days; big companies make questionable decisions all the time ;-)
21 9y ago
Most likely you are not the target of this subscription. You will be just collateral damage. Just like most people wouldn't pay 2000 a month for access to their terminal software.
zerostar07 9y ago
I think they idea is that they expect only a small percentage to pay the subscriptions. The rest may get one or two free articles a month, which for them counts as a lure to attract new customers.
Strom 9y ago
Bloomberg offers 10 articles for free, so it would seem that they aren't asking for $35 for 3 visits.

it's funny that bloomberg is now trying to charge for something that's basically content marketing for its terminals.

Welcome to the economics of ad free websites (for now, at least). A large percentage of people simply will not pay for website access, no matter how low the price. So you get your money from those who do, who value the service so highly that parting with it would be huge pain point for them, and, so Bloomberg assumes probably after extensive surveys, those who feel that way about their publication, will likely have 35$/month to spare for the privilege.

d2p 9y ago
Just because a large percentage won't pay doesn't mean that putting the price high will maximise income. It's possible that at $10/month they'd get 5x the signups. That said, increasing prices is hard; reducing is easy. If you're trying to figure out sweet spot for max revenue is it probably makes sense to start high and slowly reduce it until you find it. If you're on a rolling monthly payment and decrease everyones prices together, nobody will get upset.
- scarface74 9y ago
  The biggest hurdle is not price elasticity between getting someone to pay $10 versus $35, it's getting people to pay anything instead of something. Look at the App Store as an example and how hard it is to get people to pay $1. Besides the people who are willing to pay are by definition people who are willing to spend money - the same demographic that advertisers covet the most. Meaning they can't target their best customers for advertising.
  - d2p 9y ago
    > The biggest hurdle is not price elasticity between getting someone to pay $10 versus $35, it's getting people to pay anything instead of something. I'm not doubting that's tough; but it's significantly easier to get someone to pay $1/month than $35/month. People aren't completely stupid; they won't just blindly pay any amount just because they'd decided they'd pay something. Like I said though; if I was making this decision, I'd start high.
- lajhsdfkl 9y ago
  > It's possible that at $10/month they'd get 5x the signups. I highly doubt it. Also, while it is possible that the people at bloomberg are so incompetent that they did not consider how to maximize their profits, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they did.
  - d2p 9y ago
    > I highly doubt it. I never said it was likely, just possible. And I wouldn't question the incompetence of anyone these days; big companies make questionable decisions all the time ;-)

21 9y ago

Most likely you are not the target of this subscription. You will be just collateral damage. Just like most people wouldn't pay 2000 a month for access to their terminal software.

zerostar07 9y ago

I think they idea is that they expect only a small percentage to pay the subscriptions. The rest may get one or two free articles a month, which for them counts as a lure to attract new customers.

Strom 9y ago

Bloomberg offers 10 articles for free, so it would seem that they aren't asking for $35 for 3 visits.