[ajscherer]

I would flip that around on you: I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch.

The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site. If they wouldn't pay for it on day 1, the odds are they won't pay for it after 2 years of using the service. If, in the process of trying to monetize your service, you "hold hostage" a portion of the value that the user has contributed to your site, they are going to be pissed.

This has all happened many times now. I think companies trying this route in the first place will be easier to change than peoples' reaction to it.

[trustfundbaby]

> I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch.

For real. This always reminds me of the dude who tries to be friends with the girl so he can eventually date her, instead of simply asking her out, and risking the 'No' like a man.

Slimy.

[matwood]

It's also the wrong way to go about because once you end up on the friends ladder it's almost impossible to cross the abyss. ;)

http://www.laddertheory.com/ladderconstruction.htm

[there]

I would flip that around on you: I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch.

i agree.

The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site.

i disagree. many users may not pay on the first day because they don't see the value in it, or don't understand how the site works. but being able to use it for free and coming to depend on it may put a higher value on it over time.

how many users would pay $1 per month to access facebook now that all of their friends are on it and they use it every day? probably a lot. those users probably wouldn't have signed up for an account in the first place if they had to enter a credit card number.

[evilduck]

Maybe. But on the other hand, they've provided me their service for free for several years now and putting it behind a pay-wall would effectively be holding my social network hostage.

Not only do I value Facebook's service at less than $1/mo, but I'd be highly resentful of the switch, especially if I percieved it as a money grab or network lock-in attempt, instead of a reflection of their increasing costs (which could still be problematic if I knew they were wasting lots of money).

[rick888]

"The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site. "

Yes it will. If that user uses your service every day, over time, it will be more valuable to them. Most services also don't just stay the same over time. More features are added and bugs are fixed, which adds to the value.

"If they wouldn't pay for it on day 1, the odds are they won't pay for it after 2 years of using the service."

If you never gave them the option of paying in the first place, how do you know?

"I think companies trying this route in the first place will be easier to change than peoples' reaction to it."

The answer is to not have free services in the first place. Many companies have tried the freemium model and then realize that it can't scale (IE: the costs to support this free user base out weighs the benefits).

[miles]

any companies have tried the freemium model and then realize that it can't scale (IE: the costs to support this free user base out weighs the benefits).

It has scaled wonderfully for Evernote:

"From the start, Libin modeled Evernote to be profitable at a 1% conversion rate ... Right now, roughly 2% of all Evernoters are premium customers ... Libin wants to maintain that rate at 5% or less. If people start converting en masse, 'that means our free product isn't good enough,' he says."

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/147/next-tech-remember-t...

[rick888]

"It has scaled wonderfully for Evernote:"

This is the exception rather than the rule.

[ryanelkins]

I want to give Scribd the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see this as malicious as much as a business decisions that was misinterpreted.

It was probably something like this: People upload a lot of stuff to their service. Once content goes "stale" no one is viewing it anymore, but they are still storing it. They decided they could either remove the material to make room for new stuff or monetize the old material in a way that justified keeping it around.

The cost of storage is pretty low so maybe I'm reaching a bit here on their behalf. I have no idea what sort of scale they are at. Perhaps I just like to believe that people aren't trying to be evil.

[teaspoon]

That argument's not self-consistent, though. If people are still viewing the "stale" content, then what makes it stale? If people aren't viewing the content, then how can they recoup any costs by putting it behind a paywall?

[YuriNiyazov]

"The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site."

I disagree, at least in one specific case. A new dating site doesn't have enough of a userbase of the gender that I am interested in for me to signup and pay a monthly fee. If they successfully complete their marketing play, I will gladly sign up.