2 ms·
I agree...I think users would be even less likely to pay for something that used to be free. Maybe they could get users to pay for more detailed analytics, suc
by byoung2 17y ago
I agree...I think users would be even less likely to pay for something that used to be free. Maybe they could get users to pay for more detailed analytics, such as a breakdown by time/date, location, or a list of other videos users had watched. But this data would only be useful to a small fraction of YouTube users.
- stanleydrew 17y agoI actually think you might have an easier time selling something that used to be free. In any case I certainly don't think users are less likely to buy something that was free. If it's free first, users have already seen it so they know what it's worth. You're arguing that there's a set of people who would have been willing to pay for something had they not been given it for free first. But because it was free, all of a sudden they don't want it anymore once it costs money. I think that's a stretch. Also consider joe video-uploader who had never thought of paying for something like analytics, but since he's been using it for free and knows how valuable it is to him he can make a better informed decision as to whether it's worth $10/mo or whatever.
- Tippingpoint 17y agoThis is a great way to explain what I've seen happen. You have to set user's expectations that it's free now but not going to be free forever is fine... Thanks for commenting.