I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with bait and switch - it's a common marketing tactic - but let's call a cat a cat.
Bullshit. Information is power.
Mixergy should concentrate on monetization with different ways rather than subscription model
Agreed.
Wrong.
The provider of that information should be able to charge what he wants. It's capitalism.
The HN lynch mob is pathetic.
On another note, I'm glad to see Andrew turning Mixergy into a real business that can be self-sustaining. As entrepreneurs, we should all be able to agree with that.
...I used credit cards and ingenuity to create a $30+ mil / year (in sales) internet business...
Maybe he has a grand master plan to make more 30+$ mils with mixergy ....
However, I think this is a really bad business move, second only to using a fake name. It creates distrust and devalues the community aspect of the product.
Calling the interviews chit-chat is nothing short of demeaning the effort of both Andrew and the interviewee. I would argue that the interviews are great and do teach us a lot. Often as part of the interview other parts such as history are covered, but that again adds to the whole experience.
Finally, the reason I believe this will not be a blockbuster, is because of two reasons.
1. On the net people rarely pay for content. 2. Scrappy entrepreneurs by my guess, are not the ones who would fall in the category of "paying people".
I do hope that Andrew is successful though.
People pay for trusted, consistent online content that will help them achieve specific solutions. And Andrew's interviews are a prime example.
There are lots of people doing this. They just don't show up on many Web 2.0 sites.
I didn't mean bad, what I meant they are conversational interviews, they are not focused on teaching you something. The very nature of these interviews is the reason that I wouldn't pay money for them.
I'd pay for MIT Startup Bootcamp videos because they are solely focus on something which directly potentially almost instantly will effect my business (if the topic is relevant). In these interview I'm lucky if I can pick up 2-3 things by pure luck.
So again I don't mean bad, I think they are really nice, but it's like renting a video from a video store. Not great for business but great to watch and have a good time.
However if I'm going to pay I expect the get some more actionable outcome from it.
Yes, spoon feeding days are over. And yes, that is a good thing.
Andrew, based on my experience and data from the content/marketing industry, I'd encourage you to charge more -- at a MINIMUM $47/month, probably $97/month or even $297/month.
If you want to chat about why I suggest this, and some of my internal metrics, please email me.
Andrews videos are useful but they aren't your short cut to millions, start ups are still going to be a lot of work and a big gamble no matter how much wisdom you have gained from people on the subject.
I'm sure there are plenty of upstarts who find these videos extremenly valuable, but aren't willing or able to pay hundreds of dollars. I don't think it's in Andrew's goals to do that.
Finally I'm sure out of thousands people 10 will subscribe but potentially that's pretty much it, that model wouldn't work unless you got something crucial. And to be honest this is just chit-chat. Yes I love to listen Paul Graham talk on stuff but none of the interviews are actually ground-breaking or great, it's just good time.
That's why I doubt if anyone would actually bother to subscribe.
Give it 3 months then I'm sure he'll change the model.