4 ms·

I'm okay with subscriptions. Software and quality media (such as Bloomberg) are things that provide excellent value, and people have gotten used to thinking the

I'm okay with subscriptions. Software and quality media (such as Bloomberg) are things that provide excellent value, and people have gotten used to thinking they should be free or dirt-cheap - even within our own community, which is saddening (I used to have this mentality years ago, too). Yet, most people don't bat an eyelash when paying $100-200/month JUST for cell phone service, then $100/month for cable, etc. How about car payments and insurance? If you use these services daily, then a subscription model makes sense. They're providing value to you every day.

jhall1468 8y ago
The argument is that the subscription price is prohibitive. Bloomberg is charging $35/month which is considerably more than the advertising they are replacing. I don't have Cable, I can watch news free OTA and my cell phone bill is $170/month for 4 lines. Problem is I don't use most of these services daily. Had Bloomberg decided $10-$15/month was the right range, I'd pay it happily. You can't charge $35/month for something that was previously free with zero value add and expect people to pay it.
- chadash 8y ago
  I think that Bloomberg is making a smart move here. While they have general news too, their primary focus is on high quality reporting on the financial and business markets. Many people within those industries will happily pay $35/month for this news if they find it useful, and I'd venture that many will just charge it to their employer, who won't bat an eye. They could charge $10-15/month and try to appeal to a broad audience, but the vast majority of people wouldn't pay that anyway. Given the choice, I'd prefer a smaller number of higher paying consumers within a niche anyway, since I can make a more targeted product and still bring in revenue. If anything, this lets them be laser focused on their niche.
dpcan 8y ago
I keep hearing people say that other people think things should be free. Yet, I can't think of a single time I've ever heard someone actually say that, or read something that said "this should be free." Rarely does anyone think something should be free. What people are actually thinking is: this thing is free and I'll use it while it is, but if there's a paywall, I'm done. This is very different than "should be free" because we are really saying it's value to me is $0. And, everyone is batting an eye at the rising prices of cable, cell phone service, insurance, etc. In fact, it's so blinding we can't even open our eyes to look at anymore.

jhall1468 8y ago

The argument is that the subscription price is prohibitive. Bloomberg is charging $35/month which is considerably more than the advertising they are replacing. I don't have Cable, I can watch news free OTA and my cell phone bill is $170/month for 4 lines. Problem is I don't use most of these services daily. Had Bloomberg decided $10-$15/month was the right range, I'd pay it happily. You can't charge $35/month for something that was previously free with zero value add and expect people to pay it.

chadash 8y ago
I think that Bloomberg is making a smart move here. While they have general news too, their primary focus is on high quality reporting on the financial and business markets. Many people within those industries will happily pay $35/month for this news if they find it useful, and I'd venture that many will just charge it to their employer, who won't bat an eye. They could charge $10-15/month and try to appeal to a broad audience, but the vast majority of people wouldn't pay that anyway. Given the choice, I'd prefer a smaller number of higher paying consumers within a niche anyway, since I can make a more targeted product and still bring in revenue. If anything, this lets them be laser focused on their niche.

dpcan 8y ago

I keep hearing people say that other people think things should be free. Yet, I can't think of a single time I've ever heard someone actually say that, or read something that said "this should be free." Rarely does anyone think something should be free. What people are actually thinking is: this thing is free and I'll use it while it is, but if there's a paywall, I'm done. This is very different than "should be free" because we are really saying it's value to me is $0. And, everyone is batting an eye at the rising prices of cable, cell phone service, insurance, etc. In fact, it's so blinding we can't even open our eyes to look at anymore.