+2

Greedy Move to Paywall All without Notice & Tiered Pay Structure Recommendation

Scarlo 1 week ago in Website updated by cornhusker395 1 week ago 2

The new paywall was quite a surprise - I'd received no notice of the change and saw no forewarning banner or articles relative to this major change prior to it occurring. 

I'm not opposed to paying something, although I think there should be a tiered use structure where people pay commensurate to their level of engagement. 


For example, SA's news feed should be free, to continue to drive users of all classes to the website. Contributor articles could be accessed at Tier 1 for, say, $99 per year. I'd probably pay for that (rarely an article inspires me, but it has happened, and the comments sections can be quite valuable). Beyond that, SA could charge $249 for advanced research & other value-added tools that they offer. 

The way this move was carried out, however, smells of unbridled greed. My guess is that the previous CEO's (Avi, was it?) estate may have just settled and the new owners came storming in and demanded the the maximization of profit, regardless of consequences. 

It is a shame to see a well thought out business model, nurtured to grow over many years, go by the wayside like this. You can be sure that if the entire site remains paywalled for very long, a new competitor will spring up to eat SA's lunch. I was around when message boards like Raging Bull roamed the internet, and SA's model will is not particularly difficult to replicate or populate come the next great market rush. Perhaps I'll even finance the creation of it myself! 

Farewell & thanks for all the fish!

+1

Their move puts a sour taste in my mouth.  Not only was this a greedy move on their part the rudeness of how it was handled was not a good marketing move.

240 a year now wow.