4 ms·

Would you pay $1 a month for Facebook?

7 points by peter123 18y ago

quoderat 18y ago
I'd pay $10 a month if I never had to use Facebook -- if no one ever asked me, "Why aren't you on Facebook?" etc. It has become such a social expectation. But probably not many like me out there. Most people probably will pay.
coglethorpe 18y ago
>Would you pay $1 a month for Facebook? No.
mronge 18y ago
Hell no.
tptacek 18y ago
Yep.
jonknee 18y ago
No.
brk 18y ago
No. Especially now that I've found some of the people I've lost contact with and have their email addresses
catone 18y ago
Probably. $12/year to have a nice address book for keeping in touch with old high school/college buddies, and playing a couple of fun games (namely Prolific and Lexulous) seems worth it. Also, if enough people continued to use Facebook, it would be worth the $1/month to have access to the marketing opportunities that exist there.
- tptacek 18y ago
  That's my thought. I pay more than $12 a year on notebooks, and all I do is doodle in those.
jasongullickson 18y ago
I would consider it if it meant no more ads and I could disable all third-party applications (including notifications when my friends try to rope me in).
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
ChrisXYZ 18y ago
I'd move on to the next free network to come along. Companies can try and charge money, but as long as there's a line up of free sites willing to take their place, it's easier for most people to migrate to the next thing.
falsestprophet 18y ago
I would, the very day they announced the fee, build a free Facebook clone.
- jonknee 18y ago
  While there would obviously be a market for one, what would your business model be? A free Facebook has proven to be a great way to lose money.
  - eli 18y ago
    You make it up in volume, duh.
  - falsestprophet 18y ago
    Facebook is losing for several reasons. But, in the end it comes down to over-engineering and under-monetizing. I don't think there is a good reason for Facebook to ignore traditional web advertising. Sure, they have the potential to do more interesting and lucrative things in the future. But, I think shunning banners now is being a little too stubborn. I don't think that any of the new features Facebook has added over the last few years have added real value to my experience or the experience of most of the people I know. The profile, wall and photos make Facebook. I think that has always been enough. None of the other nonsense will get you laid anyway.
gojomo 18y ago
Facebook could easily launch a freemium model by just slightly impairing use of some of the most killer features. Viewing a friend's photos? Only half of each album is visible until you upgrade. Viewing friends in common or friends-of-friends? Only half are visible until you upgrade. Enjoying the news feed? Stories are embargoed from you for an hour or two until you upgrade. (You're included, but always late to the conversation.) Etc., etc. These would minimize the reasons to migrate elsewhere while making it really tempting to make an impulse yearly subscription. The biggest issue would be community backlash to having anything that was once free taken away, but I think that could be managed, too, via gradualism and education. They could also offer other ways to 'buy out' the small fee, like agreeing to watch a short targeted promotional video and then giving your feedback.
- tokenadult 18y ago
  Do I get a cut of the revenue when my friends pay up to see the other half of my photo album?
  - gojomo 18y ago
    That could work too! There are profitable businesses charging for photo hosting, so if Facebook -- the largest photo hosting site -- needs revenue to cover expenses, it would be a logical thing to charge for. Riffing further on your idea: you could get a discount if more of your friends are paid up, to emphasize the sharing-the-costs-among-all-who-benefit theme. If you're the only person in your clique who upgrades, you pay full price; if everyone does, everyone pays less. This could ignite viral peer pressure for paying up.
    - gojomo 18y ago
      Or further -- once either of you pay, you can each see all of each others' photos. Nonpaying people only see half the photos of other nonpayers, but all the photos of other payers. This would be a little like the "at least one user has to be paid for an introduction" policy I've seen on dating sites.
mdasen 18y ago
No. Why? Because even if I paid $1/mo, many other people wouldn't. As such, Facebook's value goes down - without their contact information, postings, photos, etc. Facebook has no value. So, even if one is willing to pay for Facebook, by charging money Facebook would eliminate the reason why one would pay for it - namely that almost everyone is on it and creating lots of content you want on it. That's part of the reason that it's so hard to monetize a site like Facebook - the value is being created by the users, not by you. You're just a venue. Should you want to change them for their own content, they'll just move to another venue. It's somewhat like trying to charge teenagers for loitering in your store. Sure, they're using your place as a venue and it costs money, but some definitely won't pay and as some start leaving, the crowd will follow even if a part of the group would be willing to pay for the venue.
omouse 18y ago
I'd pay if they provided a bit more value. All of the functionality can be found on other free and better alternatives. GMail does messenging much better than Facebook and Friendfeed makes dealing with the stream of info much easier. Flickr lets you post better quality photos, etc.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
behe 18y ago
No. You'd have to pay me to use it, and even then I'd still have reservations about it.
benreesman 18y ago
no but i'd pay ten times that much for twitter. with a little luck they'd spend it whale hunting.
mannicken 18y ago
Like Classmates.com? I still have a couple of messages that I should pay to view. I haven't paid for 4 years and will continue doing so.
herval 18y ago
no way... let me add a monetization option for facebook here: why not adding revenue share with application providers? Block adsense, force their own ad engine, get 30%...
1010011010 18y ago
No.
bayareaguy 18y ago
If only I could pay $1 a month to make Facebook articles go away...

7 points by peter123 18y ago

I'd pay $10 a month if I never had to use Facebook -- if no one ever asked me, "Why aren't you on Facebook?" etc. It has become such a social expectation. But probably not many like me out there. Most people probably will pay.

coglethorpe 18y ago

>Would you pay $1 a month for Facebook? No.

mronge 18y ago

Hell no.

tptacek 18y ago

Yep.

jonknee 18y ago

No.

brk 18y ago

No. Especially now that I've found some of the people I've lost contact with and have their email addresses

catone 18y ago

Probably. $12/year to have a nice address book for keeping in touch with old high school/college buddies, and playing a couple of fun games (namely Prolific and Lexulous) seems worth it. Also, if enough people continued to use Facebook, it would be worth the $1/month to have access to the marketing opportunities that exist there.

tptacek 18y ago
That's my thought. I pay more than $12 a year on notebooks, and all I do is doodle in those.

jasongullickson 18y ago

I would consider it if it meant no more ads and I could disable all third-party applications (including notifications when my friends try to rope me in).

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

ChrisXYZ 18y ago

I'd move on to the next free network to come along. Companies can try and charge money, but as long as there's a line up of free sites willing to take their place, it's easier for most people to migrate to the next thing.

falsestprophet 18y ago

I would, the very day they announced the fee, build a free Facebook clone.

jonknee 18y ago
While there would obviously be a market for one, what would your business model be? A free Facebook has proven to be a great way to lose money.
- eli 18y ago
  You make it up in volume, duh.
- falsestprophet 18y ago
  Facebook is losing for several reasons. But, in the end it comes down to over-engineering and under-monetizing. I don't think there is a good reason for Facebook to ignore traditional web advertising. Sure, they have the potential to do more interesting and lucrative things in the future. But, I think shunning banners now is being a little too stubborn. I don't think that any of the new features Facebook has added over the last few years have added real value to my experience or the experience of most of the people I know. The profile, wall and photos make Facebook. I think that has always been enough. None of the other nonsense will get you laid anyway.

gojomo 18y ago

Facebook could easily launch a freemium model by just slightly impairing use of some of the most killer features. Viewing a friend's photos? Only half of each album is visible until you upgrade. Viewing friends in common or friends-of-friends? Only half are visible until you upgrade. Enjoying the news feed? Stories are embargoed from you for an hour or two until you upgrade. (You're included, but always late to the conversation.) Etc., etc. These would minimize the reasons to migrate elsewhere while making it really tempting to make an impulse yearly subscription. The biggest issue would be community backlash to having anything that was once free taken away, but I think that could be managed, too, via gradualism and education. They could also offer other ways to 'buy out' the small fee, like agreeing to watch a short targeted promotional video and then giving your feedback.

tokenadult 18y ago
Do I get a cut of the revenue when my friends pay up to see the other half of my photo album?
- gojomo 18y ago
  That could work too! There are profitable businesses charging for photo hosting, so if Facebook -- the largest photo hosting site -- needs revenue to cover expenses, it would be a logical thing to charge for. Riffing further on your idea: you could get a discount if more of your friends are paid up, to emphasize the sharing-the-costs-among-all-who-benefit theme. If you're the only person in your clique who upgrades, you pay full price; if everyone does, everyone pays less. This could ignite viral peer pressure for paying up.
  - gojomo 18y ago
    Or further -- once either of you pay, you can each see all of each others' photos. Nonpaying people only see half the photos of other nonpayers, but all the photos of other payers. This would be a little like the "at least one user has to be paid for an introduction" policy I've seen on dating sites.

mdasen 18y ago

No. Why? Because even if I paid $1/mo, many other people wouldn't. As such, Facebook's value goes down - without their contact information, postings, photos, etc. Facebook has no value. So, even if one is willing to pay for Facebook, by charging money Facebook would eliminate the reason why one would pay for it - namely that almost everyone is on it and creating lots of content you want on it. That's part of the reason that it's so hard to monetize a site like Facebook - the value is being created by the users, not by you. You're just a venue. Should you want to change them for their own content, they'll just move to another venue. It's somewhat like trying to charge teenagers for loitering in your store. Sure, they're using your place as a venue and it costs money, but some definitely won't pay and as some start leaving, the crowd will follow even if a part of the group would be willing to pay for the venue.

omouse 18y ago

I'd pay if they provided a bit more value. All of the functionality can be found on other free and better alternatives. GMail does messenging much better than Facebook and Friendfeed makes dealing with the stream of info much easier. Flickr lets you post better quality photos, etc.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

behe 18y ago

No. You'd have to pay me to use it, and even then I'd still have reservations about it.

benreesman 18y ago

no but i'd pay ten times that much for twitter. with a little luck they'd spend it whale hunting.

mannicken 18y ago

Like Classmates.com? I still have a couple of messages that I should pay to view. I haven't paid for 4 years and will continue doing so.

herval 18y ago

no way... let me add a monetization option for facebook here: why not adding revenue share with application providers? Block adsense, force their own ad engine, get 30%...

1010011010 18y ago

No.

bayareaguy 18y ago

If only I could pay $1 a month to make Facebook articles go away...