About Dsdf4

Dsdf4


Follow
Befriend
1 threads
19 comments
San Mateo, CA
Followed by 0
Following 0
Ignored by 0
Ignoring 0
Ignore Dsdf4
Aliases
In United States
Registered Dec 29, 2011

Dsdf4's most recent comments:

  • On 25 Aug 2012 in , Dsdf4 said:

    Patrick says

    When I charged $5/month back in 2006, I got 417 subscribers out of about 10,000 previously-free subscribers. So that's $2,085 per month.

    To me this proves that if the pricing is right, you will get subscriptions. Obviously, the lower the price, the larger the number of subscriptions - however, I do not think the relationship is a linear one, since there is an exponential number of people that can afford a very low price (e.g. $9.99 per year), vs. a relatively low price ($5/month), vs. a relatively quite high price ($7/month). Even if you got the 100 people to pay that latter amount, you would be capping your earning potential, whereas at the lowest rate you could always expect new subscriptions, as more people who can afford the cost, find out about the site.

    In essence, if you are going to try the subscription model, I truly believe super low cost is the way to go, if it is to work at all (which of course, it may not, as with any business) - but at least it makes more sense to me on paper/logically than the other subscription approaches you have tried, especially in consideration of your relatively high readership, which means that if this is going to 'maybe' work, you may get a sense for it fairly quickly (I would give it at least 6-12 months, but easy for me to say).

    BayArea says

    I don't like paying for anything on a weekly basis

    Me neither! just the thought of having to reconcile a weekly charge in quicken would discourage me from doing a weekly subscription (call me lazy I guess).

    Squatting in East CoCo says

    Patrick should make money.
    Most entertainment sites make money through advertising.

    I agree with both statements - the first one is why I posted this in the first place (I do not think $7/week will be successful, and it looks like neither does Patrick), the latter one is a possible alternate/parallel business model that Patrick has struggled/discussed in the past (realtors wanting to advertise, etc...)

    drew_eckhardt says

    The value isn't there.

    My Economist subscription runs about $3 a week.

    Fully agreed - it is too expensive because the value is not there - in addition, the pool of potential buyers that could afford it (if it was valuable enough) is extremely limited (considering this is essentially discretionary spending).

    Patrick says

    But then suddenly I was trapped doing customer service for lots of people when their email was blocked by some spam filter, and I had my regular job to deal with, and I didn't feel I could take days off. I started resenting it as an extra obligation for money I didn't even need at the time.

    It sounds like you need to do some soul searching about what you like to do and don't like to do. I guess you chose the 100 subscriber approach because you feel you would have a manageable amount of subscribers to deal with, which makes sense from that perspective. You may want to think about the ratio of programmers to customers for 'the industry'...someone like facebook is able to support huge amounts of users per programmer...you are obviously not facebook resource wise, but your site (certainly as far as the links stuff goes) is quite simple, so you should ask yourself why it takes so much time to service relatively low number of customers (e.g. maybe you need some help with UI and programming to make the site more intuitive and robust...which I think you sorely do).

    Patrick says

    It's kind of bizarre that they were ever so popular.

    They are popular because you are good at picking those links. You found something you are good at that people like, that's the right foundation...you just need to find the right business model.Patrick says

    So that business is dead now too.

    I thought padmapper was awesome (as per my previous posts - and the rationale why you should compete with Craigslist as I mentioned); conversely, your aggregation approach not so much. However, both quite poor business models, since they depended on CL's data, which neither of you had arranged with CL to use...not a sustainable model.Patrick says

    those 4 hours per day

    Do you even enjoy doing the links? I almost get the sense that is is a painful chore...if you enjoy doing it, I think you should keep at it (while finding a way to monetize it), if not, you should kill it and move on.

    My 2 cents, just hoping to help out in my own way.

  • On 1 Aug 2012 in Patrick...no other way to say this., Dsdf4 said:

    Patrick says

    Dsdf4 says

    it would be pretty cool to let registered people comment on the postings too...

    I've already heard from landlords that they definitely do not want the general public to be able to comment on their listings.

    So there's a conflict already. I'd feel obligated to allow open discussion, but customers don't want that.

    That's a minor point anyways...so you can let the poster choose whether others can comment or not...some people may opt in because they want the additional traffic (e.g. if they price it right, good location, well kept...) others may not...either way if the feature does not work you kill it if it does you keep it alive...just like you do in the forum & elsewhere...

  • On 1 Aug 2012 in Patrick...no other way to say this., Dsdf4 said:

    So you would have a place that combines real estate market, news & forum...pretty nice combination...it would be pretty cool to let registered people comment on the postings too...I have a feeling you would get plenty of opinions...since you are competing with CL (free), you have to go with something dead simple, fast, clean and user friendly, and add more value to allow you to charge even the low price...(mapping, better search...)

See other users near Dsdf4

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net  

Page took 143 milliseconds to create.