Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
1–10 of 143 posts
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#2My first reaction was well, that sucks. I was wrong.
I think this is an excellent business model for Mixergy. As a fan of Mixergy, I am happy that I have a weeks time to listen to the interviews before they go behind the subscription wall. Andrew, keep up the good work.
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#3I would be really interested in seeing data on how much people decide to pay for the interviews.
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#4Are the transcripts going behind the paywall too?
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#5I think the pricing model per month is not the best. A much better model would be a pay per view model, perhaps $5/video?
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#6I think the pricing model per month is not the best. A much better model would be a pay per view model, perhaps $5/video?
It looks like the videos are still free on iTunes. Not sure if this will last or if it will change to a pay per episode like you mentioned.
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#7Today must be April 1st. 25 dollars a month seems a wee bit overpriced. I wonder if YouTube could get away with charging that much for the millions of videos that they offer. In any case, at $25 per month, I would love to learn what percentage of free users convert to paying customers. With 1% being a typical conversion rate for Freemium, I'd be surprised if they even got one tenth of one percent to convert.
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#8I definitely like the model, but I think $25/mo is too high, especially when compared to other sources of information. The $50 and $100 options made me chuckle a bit (sorry).
The Economist print edition comes at $15/mo. 30 days of New York Times, delivered in print is $29/mo. That's a lot more content than Mixergy. And you have similar similar sites like BigThink and the Stanford ECorner podcasts, which are free.
But I'd pay $5/mo, or better yet, $1 per video.
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#9My first reaction was well, that sucks . I was wrong. I think this is an excellent business model for Mixergy. As a fan of Mixergy, I am happy that I have a weeks time to listen to the interviews before they go behind the subscription wall. Andrew, keep up the good work.
I think the model is sound as well but the prices are a bit expensive and its all-or-nothing. I'd love some sort of micropayment option per interview. At his cheapest option, $25/month, that's either $300/year for interviews, which is over double the price of my highest paid subscription to anything right now (the Economist).
They're arguably worth it, but I can see folks with tight budgets not willing to pay that much for any content.
Also with so many good startup eyeballs I am curious if the sponsorship angle was considered, specifically from service providers. There seem to be a ton of lawyers & other products that would kill for eyeballs and ears in Andrew's market.
I'm a big fan as well but I still find this a bit startling. But I do appreciate as well the fact that you can watch interviews free for the first week. That is plenty -- he could have cranked that down to one day and personally I'd still find my way over there to watch/listen.
Re: Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week
#10I like mixergy and think that the interviews are great. But I still believe that this monetisation strategy is a strategic mistake. The reasons are these:
1. I've seen a few of these interviews being done online by others. This game is a winner take all game. The most popular such site is going to have everyone wanting to be interviewed there, and everyone will watch it because popular names are interviewed then. So it's important in this niche to become the dominant force and stay there, giving competitors no chance. Putting a paywall is going to lead to fewer incoming links and less traffic on old videos, slowing down growth, and giving others a chance to catch up
2. The payment model is unusual for video. People want to purchase a video and have it on their drives. They don't want to have to watch hundreds of videos in a single month.
3. The price is high. $25 for a month of access to video is a bit high, in my uninformed estimation
I think that a better strategy would be a focus on growth and improving the quality of the people, and focusing on breaking more into the mainstream. This particular move is going to slow down growth, and I think it may be difficult to get certain names on when they know that they are doing the interview for someone elses profit.
And my final argument is this: This model shuts down the possibilities of further experimentation. When the videos are closed, it's not possible to test other ways of monetising the traffic arriving at the videos.