3 ms·

You're proving my entire point. You bought this because it's an experiment, you wanted to validate the experiment.

• lukev 15y ago
  Of course this is personal analysis of my own motivations and thus hardly scientific, but yeah, my whole point was that I think I would buy this even if it wasn't an experiment. I didn't buy Trent Reznor or Radiohead's experiments because I don't like their music, but I did want to see this show, so I bought it.
  • natep 15y ago
    Because two points make a line and therefore are irrefutable (ha ha), I'd like to add that I also passed on those experiments and bought the DVD. It was $5, just like the games I tend to buy on Steam. But if it were $15+, I would have passed, like I have on the rest of his DVDs.
• gillygize 15y ago
  But there is also the lower price to consider. Even if the rarity of the event brought more purchases, with $5 vs the $15 or $20 it would have cost in a more tradition method of sales, the price alone would certainly bring in some customers who would not have paid the higher price.
• r0s 15y ago
  Unless he likes the business model, and it meets his needs. The novelty of the model is unrelated to it's efficacy.
• barrkel 15y ago
  He's not. He's making a point about the transformative nature of price, lack of DRM encumberance and immediate gratification. These are behind the success of itunes as well.
• roguecoder 15y ago
  No, he bought it because it was a better product at a lower price point that currently-available comedy, making the marginal value of the product lower that the marginal cost to him. If he had bought it and not watched it, he'd have been validating the experiment. As it is, he's just an anecdotal example of someone on the right hand side of the supply-demand curve. Reality validated the experiment, not manipulative consumers (of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias...)