I do not understand why most companies do not charge more. I think most people undercharge because 1) they copy others 2) an employee doesn't wanna suggest charging more and looking stupid/get fired 3) media folk/journalists want to be affordable for everyone
-
-
Show this thread
-
But...with $540k a year in subscription revenue...that's nothing. You might as well make it free. I think a company like Runners World could surely make tens of millions in subscription revenue, training plans, and other things like that...if they got their pricing right.
Show this thread -
My opinion (which came from people much smarter than me) is that most companies should charge as much as 10x what they're currently charging.https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-advice-to-startups-raise-prices-2016-6 …
Show this thread -
shout out to
@Digiday and@bmorrissey -- love reading their work dailyShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve heard companies and individuals compare what they charge to Netflix and other subscription companies when it’s not even relative. Most should definitely charge more.
-
If you can get 167 million subscribers, $5 a month is a pretty great idea.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Agreed. How much would you charge instead? I'm not sure their other monetization methods, but I would guess they're favoring volume over revenue because paid subscribers seem to spend a lot on additional products/services. Only reason why I think they would charge so little.
-
I'd need to dig deep to have a real answer. But I'd start at $300/year then would keep raising prices each week to see what happens.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Don't forget 40% of subscriptions pay $5 per month, which adds up to $60 per year! So it's more than $540K...
-
Still WAY too small for what they could get.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.