Dynamic pricing concept
I must say, I'm not sure that my bike is original. If it already exists in some form, please provide links. Thank. I will retell all the arguments that led me to this idea, so that the motives are clear. Those who are not interested can scroll down to describe the proposed solution.
So, all existing schemes for the distribution of paid content are far from ideal. The situation that has developed around these schemes is reminiscent of a war of extermination between rights holders and consumers. And it is clear that there can be no winners in this war: if one of the parties fully wins, both sides automatically lose, as in the “ prisoner's dilemma ” game. So, you can only win by starting to cooperate and look for compromise options.
We formulate an ideal, the achievement of which we will consider “justice”:
1. Producers of sought-after content receive remuneration proportional to demand, and sufficient to engage in work professionally.
2. Consumers (users) receive a low price (tending to zero) and convenient delivery method.
')
I will make a reservation that this "justice" is purely market. The option of communist justice "everything will be free" is not considered, because as yet there is no way to make everything really free. Also please note, the author loves free content and open-source, and supports it in every way, but the article is about paid content.
Let's try to consider ways of paying for commercial content by sorting out the shortcomings:
1. Selling files. Predicting the sale of files is difficult, which leads to the formation of a high price "with a margin." The users, frightened by the price, follow the files to the torrents, which reduces sales and forces sellers to increase prices again. There is a system with bad feedback. Breaking the vicious circle is possible by setting a very low price. However, this is a big risk that only sellers with predictably high demand can afford, for example, popular musicians. And this is a significant barrier to 90% of the content. There is another way: forcibly bind the user to the "correct" file sources and devices with a closed architecture. This method works successfully (Apple, Amazon, Sony), but contradicts the idea of ​​a free market. And this is a big drawback for users who are forced to obey the monopolist dictatorship.
2. Subscription and subscription fee. The idea is to charge users a flat fee for using any content. The method is simple, but it has many drawbacks. A fixed amount of money limits the growth of supply, which means supply will be limited to the limit beyond which it will be unprofitable to produce something. If you distribute money by the number of downloads, projects requiring large investments will have to be closed, even if there is effective demand — they simply will not be allowed to realize. On the part of users, too, injustice: inactive pay for hyperactive. Nevertheless, the scheme can work in conditions where these shortcomings are insignificant: all content is approximately the same in value, and users use it approximately equally. For example, for music may well work.
3. Monetization advertising. This method is bad by definition, because it is implicit, and brings a little money. Some examples: TV, product placement, platypus. Like? Nevertheless, the method is working, and it can be used, if very carefully. That is, as an additional source of profit, and not the main one. Or in the case of cheap in the production of content.
And finally: a bicycle scheme!
It turns out that of all the above methods, only selling content at a low price can be considered universal. This method is suitable for any type of content and takes into account the interests of both parties. He has only one limitation: a big risk, because of the fundamental impossibility of predicting demand. Yes, demand can be roughly determined on the basis of previous demand. But each information product is unique, and such an approach is not applicable to it, especially in the global Internet market.
A situation arises in which the traditional economy is helpless. She knows how to fight risks only by “risk management” on the part of manufacturers. What can the new Internet economy offer? As usual: the problem is solved by the users, then the risk must be shared by the consumers themselves. What will they get in return? Same as capitalists: super-profits and rent! Electronic money systems work fine in both directions. So, is it necessary to hold on to the traditional concept of "selling"?
The proposed scheme is simple: during the production of a product a fixed rate of profit is laid, everything that is received in excess is distributed among users. Thus, the initial price of a file $ 10 calculated for 10 thousand users turns into $ 1 if there are 100 thousand users. After reaching a certain "threshold", each new sale leads to a decrease in prices for all who bought the file. Those who have already bought for $ 10, will eventually return $ 9.
Why is it profitable for content producers? They get a small profit, but with a higher probability. In the current situation for most manufacturers, the question is to survive at all, so they will easily sacrifice virtual super-profits. And in return, they will get an advantage: users themselves are now interested in distributing a product (moreover, in paid distribution!), It is possible to reduce the cost of advertising and combating piracy.
Why it is beneficial to users - it is clear, as sales grow, money comes back. Your friend bought the same as you, and not just rewrote, in the end, both of you won, and even supported the manufacturer. We wrote a review about the product in the blog - we returned part of the money automatically.
I don’t know examples of the implementation of such a scheme, but there are successfully working schemes that are somewhat similar:
- Collective shopping. A crowd gathers at a forum or a special service and makes a purchase in bulk, at a wholesale price.
- Moneyback (money-back). The scheme is common in the West: you click on an affiliate link, make a purchase, the link owner returns you a part of his reward.
- Pre-order discounted. It can be said that the user here acts as an investor, and the company has reduced risks, since real money comes in even before the start of direct sales.
Of course, the method has drawbacks. For example, everything depends on the declared rate of return and the calculation of production costs. The scheme requires honesty from manufacturers, and the desire to work according to this scheme. Otherwise, you can lose the trust of users.
Among other things, this is a good idea for a startup! It remains only to convince a large number of people that this method is working, and it will work. :)
UPD: I just noticed another possible addition to this scheme: upon reaching a given rate of profit, the rights to distribute content go to consumers. Consequently, they will be able to change the distribution terms by voting, for example, to make further distribution free. The most logical thing in this case is to wait when everyone who could / wanted to invest did it and the price fell, and then you can distribute it for free.
So, all existing schemes for the distribution of paid content are far from ideal. The situation that has developed around these schemes is reminiscent of a war of extermination between rights holders and consumers. And it is clear that there can be no winners in this war: if one of the parties fully wins, both sides automatically lose, as in the “ prisoner's dilemma ” game. So, you can only win by starting to cooperate and look for compromise options.
We formulate an ideal, the achievement of which we will consider “justice”:
1. Producers of sought-after content receive remuneration proportional to demand, and sufficient to engage in work professionally.
2. Consumers (users) receive a low price (tending to zero) and convenient delivery method.
')
I will make a reservation that this "justice" is purely market. The option of communist justice "everything will be free" is not considered, because as yet there is no way to make everything really free. Also please note, the author loves free content and open-source, and supports it in every way, but the article is about paid content.
Let's try to consider ways of paying for commercial content by sorting out the shortcomings:
1. Selling files. Predicting the sale of files is difficult, which leads to the formation of a high price "with a margin." The users, frightened by the price, follow the files to the torrents, which reduces sales and forces sellers to increase prices again. There is a system with bad feedback. Breaking the vicious circle is possible by setting a very low price. However, this is a big risk that only sellers with predictably high demand can afford, for example, popular musicians. And this is a significant barrier to 90% of the content. There is another way: forcibly bind the user to the "correct" file sources and devices with a closed architecture. This method works successfully (Apple, Amazon, Sony), but contradicts the idea of ​​a free market. And this is a big drawback for users who are forced to obey the monopolist dictatorship.
2. Subscription and subscription fee. The idea is to charge users a flat fee for using any content. The method is simple, but it has many drawbacks. A fixed amount of money limits the growth of supply, which means supply will be limited to the limit beyond which it will be unprofitable to produce something. If you distribute money by the number of downloads, projects requiring large investments will have to be closed, even if there is effective demand — they simply will not be allowed to realize. On the part of users, too, injustice: inactive pay for hyperactive. Nevertheless, the scheme can work in conditions where these shortcomings are insignificant: all content is approximately the same in value, and users use it approximately equally. For example, for music may well work.
3. Monetization advertising. This method is bad by definition, because it is implicit, and brings a little money. Some examples: TV, product placement, platypus. Like? Nevertheless, the method is working, and it can be used, if very carefully. That is, as an additional source of profit, and not the main one. Or in the case of cheap in the production of content.
And finally: a bicycle scheme!
It turns out that of all the above methods, only selling content at a low price can be considered universal. This method is suitable for any type of content and takes into account the interests of both parties. He has only one limitation: a big risk, because of the fundamental impossibility of predicting demand. Yes, demand can be roughly determined on the basis of previous demand. But each information product is unique, and such an approach is not applicable to it, especially in the global Internet market.
A situation arises in which the traditional economy is helpless. She knows how to fight risks only by “risk management” on the part of manufacturers. What can the new Internet economy offer? As usual: the problem is solved by the users, then the risk must be shared by the consumers themselves. What will they get in return? Same as capitalists: super-profits and rent! Electronic money systems work fine in both directions. So, is it necessary to hold on to the traditional concept of "selling"?
The proposed scheme is simple: during the production of a product a fixed rate of profit is laid, everything that is received in excess is distributed among users. Thus, the initial price of a file $ 10 calculated for 10 thousand users turns into $ 1 if there are 100 thousand users. After reaching a certain "threshold", each new sale leads to a decrease in prices for all who bought the file. Those who have already bought for $ 10, will eventually return $ 9.
Why is it profitable for content producers? They get a small profit, but with a higher probability. In the current situation for most manufacturers, the question is to survive at all, so they will easily sacrifice virtual super-profits. And in return, they will get an advantage: users themselves are now interested in distributing a product (moreover, in paid distribution!), It is possible to reduce the cost of advertising and combating piracy.
Why it is beneficial to users - it is clear, as sales grow, money comes back. Your friend bought the same as you, and not just rewrote, in the end, both of you won, and even supported the manufacturer. We wrote a review about the product in the blog - we returned part of the money automatically.
I don’t know examples of the implementation of such a scheme, but there are successfully working schemes that are somewhat similar:
- Collective shopping. A crowd gathers at a forum or a special service and makes a purchase in bulk, at a wholesale price.
- Moneyback (money-back). The scheme is common in the West: you click on an affiliate link, make a purchase, the link owner returns you a part of his reward.
- Pre-order discounted. It can be said that the user here acts as an investor, and the company has reduced risks, since real money comes in even before the start of direct sales.
Of course, the method has drawbacks. For example, everything depends on the declared rate of return and the calculation of production costs. The scheme requires honesty from manufacturers, and the desire to work according to this scheme. Otherwise, you can lose the trust of users.
Among other things, this is a good idea for a startup! It remains only to convince a large number of people that this method is working, and it will work. :)
UPD: I just noticed another possible addition to this scheme: upon reaching a given rate of profit, the rights to distribute content go to consumers. Consequently, they will be able to change the distribution terms by voting, for example, to make further distribution free. The most logical thing in this case is to wait when everyone who could / wanted to invest did it and the price fell, and then you can distribute it for free.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/115000/
All Articles