4 ms·

I've long had a theory that services that demand an upfront payment for an ongoing service will find the payment works against their growth goals and remove it.

I've long had a theory that services that demand an upfront payment for an ongoing service will find the payment works against their growth goals and remove it. For example, businesses that involve $$$ reusable delivery containers don't work well because they want to give first-time customers a discount not a surcharge. Whatsapp was ridiculously cheap - something like $1/year - but they still decided that worked against their network effects. There are some markets where you pay upfront and on an ongoing basis, like buying a printer and ink or a games console and games - but they often subsidise the upfront cost with profit from the ongoing costs. I'm not sure how well a $5-to-join social network would work for that reason. Sites like metafilter survive - but with five moderators and one coder, they're not going to be replacing twitter, facebook or HN any time soon.

chii 4y ago
> $5-to-join social network if those site could convince important/popular people for exclusivity, they could pull it off; i imagine it can work like spotify exclusive podcasts, or some such, since most people don't actually produce content, but consume.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  I feel like twitter is trying to do this? $8/mo for premium members, all the celebrities are there already.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    Well, with Twitter, the $8 ($11 on mobile) "premium" members are pretty much all people I would rather avoid.
nisegami 4y ago
>will find the payment works against their growth goals and remove it Their mistake is having growth as a goal rather than a happy community.
- theFletch 4y ago
  Quality over quantity. Not everything has to appeal to the masses to make a good business.
flir 4y ago
Sometimes, growth isn't the point (I too point to metafilter). Cash up front is a barrier.
wwweston 4y ago
Metafilter is a pretty interesting case -- deliberately limiting growth seems to have worked out pretty well for the site over most of its existence, and growth goals have always been about other qualities than sheer numbers. It doesn't need to compete with anybody else on scale. I'd say HN is one of the few forums competitive on quality of discourse vs metafilter, but its business model is essentially loss-leader for VC/incubator activities, so it's a bit of an odd duck itself.
smiley1437 4y ago
> Whatsapp was ridiculously cheap - something like $1/year - but they still decided that worked against their network effects. My boss of a multimillion dollar company took offense at being charged $1/year to use Whatsapp back when it came out and started getting popular, so it did have an effect My eyes practically rolled out of my head when I heard him complain but that really stuck with me
- 9991 4y ago
  You don't become a millionaire by spending a million dollars ...
angarg12 4y ago
It's a matter of mental model. I'm thinking more "private members club" than social network.
angarg12 4y ago
For me it's not about a business, it's about a community. The fee is just a barrier to entry to filter participants. I believe even a nominal amount would keep most people out, and that's by design. Also you don't need huge numbers to build a personally interesting community. Even a few dozen dedicated people can be plenty.

chii 4y ago

> $5-to-join social network if those site could convince important/popular people for exclusivity, they could pull it off; i imagine it can work like spotify exclusive podcasts, or some such, since most people don't actually produce content, but consume.

linuxftw 4y ago
I feel like twitter is trying to do this? $8/mo for premium members, all the celebrities are there already.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  Well, with Twitter, the $8 ($11 on mobile) "premium" members are pretty much all people I would rather avoid.

nisegami 4y ago

>will find the payment works against their growth goals and remove it Their mistake is having growth as a goal rather than a happy community.

theFletch 4y ago
Quality over quantity. Not everything has to appeal to the masses to make a good business.

flir 4y ago

Sometimes, growth isn't the point (I too point to metafilter). Cash up front is a barrier.

wwweston 4y ago

Metafilter is a pretty interesting case -- deliberately limiting growth seems to have worked out pretty well for the site over most of its existence, and growth goals have always been about other qualities than sheer numbers. It doesn't need to compete with anybody else on scale. I'd say HN is one of the few forums competitive on quality of discourse vs metafilter, but its business model is essentially loss-leader for VC/incubator activities, so it's a bit of an odd duck itself.

smiley1437 4y ago

> Whatsapp was ridiculously cheap - something like $1/year - but they still decided that worked against their network effects. My boss of a multimillion dollar company took offense at being charged $1/year to use Whatsapp back when it came out and started getting popular, so it did have an effect My eyes practically rolled out of my head when I heard him complain but that really stuck with me

9991 4y ago
You don't become a millionaire by spending a million dollars ...

angarg12 4y ago

It's a matter of mental model. I'm thinking more "private members club" than social network.

angarg12 4y ago

For me it's not about a business, it's about a community. The fee is just a barrier to entry to filter participants. I believe even a nominal amount would keep most people out, and that's by design. Also you don't need huge numbers to build a personally interesting community. Even a few dozen dedicated people can be plenty.