Comments on: The difference between price and value http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/ Nic Brisbourne's view from London on venture capital and exploiting change in technology and media Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:08:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cheap wholesale polo hoody,wholesale replica NBA 2 shoes,cheap … | Jewelry Beauty Wisdom http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-5899 Cheap wholesale polo hoody,wholesale replica NBA 2 shoes,cheap … | Jewelry Beauty Wisdom Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:06:51 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-5899 [...] The difference between price and value | The Equity Kicker [...] [...] The difference between price and value | The Equity Kicker [...]

]]> By: brisbourne http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-6427 brisbourne Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:22:37 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-6427 I think it might go two ways - either news companies will find alternative business models, as Techcrunch, Huffington Post, and eConsultancy have done at a small scale, or following an almighty shake up we will end up paying! I think it might go two ways – either news companies will find alternative business models, as Techcrunch, Huffington Post, and eConsultancy have done at a small scale, or following an almighty shake up we will end up paying!

]]> By: chrispadfield http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-6426 chrispadfield Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:26 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-6426 Agreed on first point - although it often amazes me how irrational people (including myself) are about paying for some things or not. Facebook provides me far more utility than a lot of things I pay for but like most people I doubt I would pay for it if forced too.<br><br>Media/news is certainly abundant, good/news media - and just as important someone to select/recommend/package good news/media is not. The later might be solved by technology - but the the former will always have a cost to produce that needs funding; or it simply wont exist.<br><br>A direct question: If you think people will not pay for news, do you think news companies will be able to come up with a business model that generates enough revenue to pay for the creation of high quality news? If not, and given the political necessity of having an informed citizenship for a functioning democracy - does this further validate the need to fund the BBC - and perhaps other countries will have to increase public support of news? Agreed on first point – although it often amazes me how irrational people (including myself) are about paying for some things or not. Facebook provides me far more utility than a lot of things I pay for but like most people I doubt I would pay for it if forced too.

Media/news is certainly abundant, good/news media – and just as important someone to select/recommend/package good news/media is not. The later might be solved by technology – but the the former will always have a cost to produce that needs funding; or it simply wont exist.

A direct question: If you think people will not pay for news, do you think news companies will be able to come up with a business model that generates enough revenue to pay for the creation of high quality news? If not, and given the political necessity of having an informed citizenship for a functioning democracy – does this further validate the need to fund the BBC – and perhaps other countries will have to increase public support of news?

]]> By: brisbourne http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-6425 brisbourne Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:13:51 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-6425 Hi Chris - what I was trying to say is that people value things they won't pay for - including some of the examples you give, e.g. Facebook. <br><br>And I'm not sure I agree with the guys who say their media content isn't abundant. With news it is easy to see the multiple free options available, and piracy makes music etc. de facto the same (although even without piracy I think the same would be true eventually). Hi Chris – what I was trying to say is that people value things they won't pay for – including some of the examples you give, e.g. Facebook.

And I'm not sure I agree with the guys who say their media content isn't abundant. With news it is easy to see the multiple free options available, and piracy makes music etc. de facto the same (although even without piracy I think the same would be true eventually).

]]> By: chrispadfield http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-6424 chrispadfield Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:27:13 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-6424 Surely to a consumer value is what they would be prepared to pay - what they have to pay. Most companies spend a lot of time trying to get this to as close (but not at) zero using price differentiation (subject to competitive pressure of course)<br><br>There are a few things where value is increased as cost increases. Diamonds, limited edition cars, art, nightclubs and/or dating websites are examples of this.<br><br>I would imagine that most web users value facebook/google search/email more than the rest of all internet services combined - despite being the bits they don't pay for. While some fraction of people would likely pay for these services if forced to, I doubt anyone would say it increased their value!<br><br>>> All to often the arguments in defence of charging for news focus on the fact it has value rather than the price it can command when supply is abundant.<br><br>I think that some people who make this claim would question your premis that the type of news they are talking about is abundant. They are claiming it has value because it is not abundant. Surley the same applies to music/film/games where the reason that price is trending to zero - is not because there is now so much content competing that the price trends towards zero and that people are not prepared to pay for it - but that because it's easy to get valuable content for free through piracy so they are not prepared to pay the pricing they used to. Surely to a consumer value is what they would be prepared to pay – what they have to pay. Most companies spend a lot of time trying to get this to as close (but not at) zero using price differentiation (subject to competitive pressure of course)

There are a few things where value is increased as cost increases. Diamonds, limited edition cars, art, nightclubs and/or dating websites are examples of this.

I would imagine that most web users value facebook/google search/email more than the rest of all internet services combined – despite being the bits they don't pay for. While some fraction of people would likely pay for these services if forced to, I doubt anyone would say it increased their value!

>> All to often the arguments in defence of charging for news focus on the fact it has value rather than the price it can command when supply is abundant.

I think that some people who make this claim would question your premis that the type of news they are talking about is abundant. They are claiming it has value because it is not abundant. Surley the same applies to music/film/games where the reason that price is trending to zero – is not because there is now so much content competing that the price trends towards zero and that people are not prepared to pay for it – but that because it's easy to get valuable content for free through piracy so they are not prepared to pay the pricing they used to.

]]> By: brisbourne http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-5898 brisbourne Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:22:37 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-5898 I think it might go two ways - either news companies will find alternative business models, as Techcrunch, Huffington Post, and eConsultancy have done at a small scale, or following an almighty shake up we will end up paying! I think it might go two ways – either news companies will find alternative business models, as Techcrunch, Huffington Post, and eConsultancy have done at a small scale, or following an almighty shake up we will end up paying!

]]> By: chrispadfield http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-5896 chrispadfield Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:59:26 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-5896 Agreed on first point - although it often amazes me how irrational people (including myself) are about paying for some things or not. Facebook provides me far more utility than a lot of things I pay for but like most people I doubt I would pay for it if forced too.<br><br>Media/news is certainly abundant, good/news media - and just as important someone to select/recommend/package good news/media is not. The later might be solved by technology - but the the former will always have a cost to produce that needs funding; or it simply wont exist.<br><br>A direct question: If you think people will not pay for news, do you think news companies will be able to come up with a business model that generates enough revenue to pay for the creation of high quality news? If not, and given the political necessity of having an informed citizenship for a functioning democracy - does this further validate the need to fund the BBC - and perhaps other countries will have to increase public support of news? Agreed on first point – although it often amazes me how irrational people (including myself) are about paying for some things or not. Facebook provides me far more utility than a lot of things I pay for but like most people I doubt I would pay for it if forced too.

Media/news is certainly abundant, good/news media – and just as important someone to select/recommend/package good news/media is not. The later might be solved by technology – but the the former will always have a cost to produce that needs funding; or it simply wont exist.

A direct question: If you think people will not pay for news, do you think news companies will be able to come up with a business model that generates enough revenue to pay for the creation of high quality news? If not, and given the political necessity of having an informed citizenship for a functioning democracy – does this further validate the need to fund the BBC – and perhaps other countries will have to increase public support of news?

]]> By: brisbourne http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-5894 brisbourne Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:13:51 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-5894 Hi Chris - what I was trying to say is that people value things they won't pay for - including some of the examples you give, e.g. Facebook. <br><br>And I'm not sure I agree with the guys who say their media content isn't abundant. With news it is easy to see the multiple free options available, and piracy makes music etc. de facto the same (although even without piracy I think the same would be true eventually). Hi Chris – what I was trying to say is that people value things they won't pay for – including some of the examples you give, e.g. Facebook.

And I'm not sure I agree with the guys who say their media content isn't abundant. With news it is easy to see the multiple free options available, and piracy makes music etc. de facto the same (although even without piracy I think the same would be true eventually).

]]> By: chrispadfield http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-5893 chrispadfield Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:27:13 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-5893 Surely to a consumer value is what they would be prepared to pay - what they have to pay. Most companies spend a lot of time trying to get this to as close (but not at) zero using price differentiation (subject to competitive pressure of course)<br><br>There are a few things where value is increased as cost increases. Diamonds, limited edition cars, art, nightclubs and/or dating websites are examples of this.<br><br>I would imagine that most web users value facebook/google search/email more than the rest of all internet services combined - despite being the bits they don't pay for. While some fraction of people would likely pay for these services if forced to, I doubt anyone would say it increased their value!<br><br>>> All to often the arguments in defence of charging for news focus on the fact it has value rather than the price it can command when supply is abundant.<br><br>I think that some people who make this claim would question your premis that the type of news they are talking about is abundant. They are claiming it has value because it is not abundant. Surley the same applies to music/film/games where the reason that price is trending to zero - is not because there is now so much content competing that the price trends towards zero and that people are not prepared to pay for it - but that because it's easy to get valuable content for free through piracy so they are not prepared to pay the pricing they used to. Surely to a consumer value is what they would be prepared to pay – what they have to pay. Most companies spend a lot of time trying to get this to as close (but not at) zero using price differentiation (subject to competitive pressure of course)

There are a few things where value is increased as cost increases. Diamonds, limited edition cars, art, nightclubs and/or dating websites are examples of this.

I would imagine that most web users value facebook/google search/email more than the rest of all internet services combined – despite being the bits they don't pay for. While some fraction of people would likely pay for these services if forced to, I doubt anyone would say it increased their value!

>> All to often the arguments in defence of charging for news focus on the fact it has value rather than the price it can command when supply is abundant.

I think that some people who make this claim would question your premis that the type of news they are talking about is abundant. They are claiming it has value because it is not abundant. Surley the same applies to music/film/games where the reason that price is trending to zero – is not because there is now so much content competing that the price trends towards zero and that people are not prepared to pay for it – but that because it's easy to get valuable content for free through piracy so they are not prepared to pay the pricing they used to.

]]> By: David Smuts http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/01/the-difference-between-price-and-value/#comment-5887 David Smuts Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:08:27 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/?p=1799#comment-5887 Apparently Dean assumes that by adding a price to a previously free magazine that somewhow the readers of the magazine will see this as adding value? Hardly logical. If he is going to add a price, he's going to have to add value to the magazine to justify the price. Just saying that the addition of a price merits value creation is not credible. What "added value" are the readers gaining from the magazine having an added price? If there are new features and benefits then a price introduction can be somewhat justified. If not and its the same content and features as before, then price is no longer an added value but become a penalty for loyalty. Apparently Dean assumes that by adding a price to a previously free magazine that somewhow the readers of the magazine will see this as adding value? Hardly logical. If he is going to add a price, he's going to have to add value to the magazine to justify the price. Just saying that the addition of a price merits value creation is not credible. What “added value” are the readers gaining from the magazine having an added price? If there are new features and benefits then a price introduction can be somewhat justified. If not and its the same content and features as before, then price is no longer an added value but become a penalty for loyalty.

]]>