2 ms·
The argument is that the subscription price is prohibitive. Bloomberg is charging $35/month which is considerably more than the advertising they are replacing.
by 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 agoI 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.