
Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week - samh
http://mixergy.com/daniel-delaney-vendrtv/
======
maxklein
I like mixergy and think that the interviews are great. But I still believe
that this monetisation strategy is a strategic mistake. The reasons are these:

1\. I've seen a few of these interviews being done online by others. This game
is a winner take all game. The most popular such site is going to have
everyone wanting to be interviewed there, and everyone will watch it because
popular names are interviewed then. So it's important in this niche to become
the dominant force and stay there, giving competitors no chance. Putting a
paywall is going to lead to fewer incoming links and less traffic on old
videos, slowing down growth, and giving others a chance to catch up

2\. The payment model is unusual for video. People want to purchase a video
and have it on their drives. They don't want to have to watch hundreds of
videos in a single month.

3\. The price is high. $25 for a month of access to video is a bit high, in my
uninformed estimation

I think that a better strategy would be a focus on growth and improving the
quality of the people, and focusing on breaking more into the mainstream. This
particular move is going to slow down growth, and I think it may be difficult
to get certain names on when they know that they are doing the interview for
someone elses profit.

And my final argument is this: This model shuts down the possibilities of
further experimentation. When the videos are closed, it's not possible to test
other ways of monetising the traffic arriving at the videos.

~~~
mrtron
I agree - the business model seems a bit forced. I think your first point will
translate into quite a reduced maximum popularity. I would have tried the
opposite approach and gave sites some easy way to embed clips of the
interviews on their sites/blogs.

People are used to paying for live video (PPV). People are used to paying to
download content. They aren't used to paying for old content.

This seems to be like giving away your new hits for free and charging for the
long tail - not sure that is ideal.

~~~
cookiecaper
I agree that an opposite model would probably have worked out better -- charge
for early access instead of archive access. Those who appreciate and
anticipate new installments can pay to receive them sooner, [past]
interviewees are perhaps less disturbed because the content will ultimately
become free, and users searching the web for things like "Paul Graham
interview" or similar would be able to find the content and get hooked,
thereby creating new paying customers.

It'd really be interesting to hear Mixergy's thought process on this, though.

------
revorad
When I found out about this I emailed Andrew. This is what i wrote:

 _I noticed recently that you've started charging for your older interviews.
Good on you, I hope you do good business.

I have one idea you might want to consider: Sell short edited versions of the
interviews. This is the opposite of what most online ebook and tutorial video
sellers do. They show some short teasers for free, but ask you to pay for the
"full program". In your case, the full program is the teaser - it's a treasure
hunt to find the golden nuggets of business wisdom interspersed in 60 minutes
of internet video chat. I bet you lose out on a lot of viewers simply because
they don't have the time to sit through hour-long interviews. I think you
could sell edited, 15-minute versions to those people. Cheapskates like me
will continue to watch for free, but people with less time will pay for
condensed honey drops of entrepreneurship gyaan. Actually, I might pay too as
I get busier with my business._

Andrew replied saying he loves the idea and has has a vision along those
lines; he just needs the time and resources for doing it. As he has stated in
his own interviews before, he is trying to create an internet treasure which
will have long lasting value. I'm sure he won't let us down.

------
andr
I definitely like the model, but I think $25/mo is too high, especially when
compared to other sources of information. The $50 and $100 options made me
chuckle a bit (sorry).

The Economist print edition comes at $15/mo. 30 days of New York Times,
delivered in print is $29/mo. That's a lot more content than Mixergy. And you
have similar similar sites like BigThink and the Stanford ECorner podcasts,
which are free.

But I'd pay $5/mo, or better yet, $1 per video.

~~~
patio11
_That's a lot more content than Mixergy._

If you convince the Times to ditch the lifestyle coverage of things of
importance to Upper East Side liberals and focus on interviewing Wufoo about
conversion rates, I'll buy a subscription to them, too. Until you do that it
strikes me like you're comparing a Ruby library and a chia pet.

------
AndrewWarner
I'm slowly building a membership section, but I didn't mean to put this and
every single other post on my homepage behind a pay-wall. The outsourcing
company I use made a mistake. I fixed it this afternoon.

But yes, I am moving towards a paid premium model that will include older
interviews. And this won't be the last time I'll make a mistake.

~~~
jordanb
It makes a lot more sense to me to put the recent interviews be behind the
paywall, and make the back catalog free.

It's typically the recent stuff that's 'hot' and therefore has the most value,
while the older stuff tends to be more of a curiosity with less value.

Plus, a wide-open back-catalog is more likely to attract references from
places like wikipedia, from people trying to cite it.

~~~
melvinram
IMHO that makes no sense.

The back catalog is more important to a real entrepreneur. Someone looking for
entertainment in the disguise of education content would find the "hot" stuff
interesting.

Someone building a business cares about specific topics because they are
having issues with specific things like search engine marketing, sales people,
partnerships, law, etc. That may or may not be covered by the latest "hot"
stuff but a quick search in the back catalog is likely to turn up a good
interview.

------
mattwdelong
Honestly, instead of being a bunch of a-holes and complaining about it. Why
not just offer him a suggestion here: [http://mixergy.wufoo.com/forms/what-
price-do-you-think-is-fa...](http://mixergy.wufoo.com/forms/what-price-do-you-
think-is-fair/) Tell him what you are willing to pay, if at all. From the
feedback he receives, I am sure he is smart enough to pivot based on this
feedback.

This is his start up, it is his right to experiment as he desires.

------
bjplink
This is probably one of the most shameful and depressing discussions I've ever
read on this site. It's amazing the backlash this appears to be causing. For a
community full of people running startups and sites, either full-time or on
the side, the concept of being upset over having to pay someone for their time
is appalling.

Most of the users here should appreciate that a person's time and effort are
not free. If you don't feel Mr. Warner's time and effort is worth what he's
charging then go somewhere else and find a similar resource. To come here and
pout like upset children that your free toy might be taking away from you is
sad. To threaten to go out of your way to circumvent his system as some of you
have is even worse.

For those of you who have products or services you actively charge for, I hope
you have had the common sense not to chime in against this decision as if it
was an attack on your very being. And if you haven't, imagine how you would
feel if someone so callously ripped your decision to try to earn a living on
your work.

------
underover
I predicted this move several days ago based on this comment.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1130231>

I have long suspected that Andrew has been using fake accounts or paying
people to put a positive spin on his threads. The above comment was made by a
brand new a account and follows a trend of other fishy comments.

~~~
retro
_"I have long suspected that Andrew has been using fake accounts or paying
people to put a positive spin on his threads. The above comment was made by a
brand new a account and follows a trend of other fishy comments."_

I have had the same suspicion for quite a while and am surprised no one has
looked into this. Glad to hear someone else thinks it's not _just_ the little
voices in my head.

~~~
staunch
PG addressed it here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1131005>

AndrewWarner does link directly to HN and ask for votes, so it's quite likely
that people register specifically to upvote/comment for his submissions.

I would like to see him comment on the ruby35 account, it is quite suspicious:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ruby35>

~~~
AndrewWarner
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen his comment.

------
AmericanOP
A lot of accolades in this thread. As for me and the rest of the silent
majority, we poor ambitious upstarts will find a new home. I might consider it
if I knew my contribution would lead to significantly greater production
value, like airplane tickets for in-person interviews or investigative
reporting.

Eulogy: Andrew was flirting with becoming a figure in start-up world...
something which can't be bought. Managed to sell it.

~~~
bob345
Please. $25/month is two-hours of work for a cashier at McDonald's. If think
the value of his work is below that, you probably don't have the right
priorities to build a startup.

------
Concours
Hey Andrew, what about letting those videos be free, and selling DVDs per
months, peoples can watch the content online for free (advertising support) in
this way you keep growing and peoples willing to pay can order videos on a
dvd, let's say each interview on a dvd cost 5 $. Next option, you can
aggregate videos of each month as dvd and sell them for ~9,99 $ , and the next
alternative will be to create an ebook from the transcripts of each month
videos and sell it for a couple or dollars, you can organise this in topic
(ebook transcript for freemium Business model, ebook for videos plattform
entrepreneurs.....you can combine it as you want: we call in in mechanical eng
variants)... That's my 2 cents. Some peoples may pay the 25 $ , but most of
your users won't, if you want to go with the subscription , what about 1,99 $
/months * many users and steady grow?

~~~
ilamont
The advertising model will not generate much revenue. As Rupert Murdoch is
wont to say, the online publishing marketplace has an infinite supply of
inventory, which drives down prices for display advertising.

The DVD idea might work for some small entrepreneurs who are not in the
Internet startup space, but since most of the Interviews are focused on tech
and the audience likely wants to see the videos online, there is a conflict
there. Maybe Andrew should start expanding into other areas of
entrepreneurship that appeal more to the non-Internet crowd?

One other note about transcripts: They are a pain to produce, as most of them
have to be done manually. Prices are coming down thanks to online services and
Mechanical Turk. But once voice-to-text tech improves to the degree where it's
possible to instantly convert any podcast or video interview to text (and
thence to e-book or whatever) that will really open the gates to e-book and
custom publishing models, IMHO. It will also boost the output of journalists,
who now have lots of overhead related to listening to audio post-interview and
transcribing some of the results.

------
ytNumbers
Today must be April 1st. 25 dollars a month seems a wee bit overpriced. I
wonder if YouTube could get away with charging that much for the millions of
videos that they offer. In any case, at $25 per month, I would love to learn
what percentage of free users convert to paying customers. With 1% being a
typical conversion rate for Freemium, I'd be surprised if they even got one
tenth of one percent to convert.

------
Tichy
I wonder, were the interviewees aware of this and are they OK with it?

Bummer, I did not even watch the full PG yet, an it was 11 days ago.

~~~
seven
Hint: try a search engine.

------
zaidf
We need Andrew to interview Andrew about this decision:)

Also, Andrew's lack of posting in this thread tells me that he is sitting back
and watching the natural reaction rather than tainting it with his own
participation.

------
adrianwaj
Also, Andrew Warner is not exactly lacking funds.

[http://www.quicksprout.com/2009/04/08/the-andrew-warner-
stor...](http://www.quicksprout.com/2009/04/08/the-andrew-warner-story-
how-a-21-year-old-created-a-385-million-dollar-business-by-returning-his-
jcrew-clothes/)

So he's charging because he can, not because he must.

~~~
bob345
This is akin to asking why Sergey Brin charges for AdWords when he's already a
billionaire or why the richest person in the world still makes money off of
Windows. Your logic is moronic.

Welcome to capitalism.

------
scootklein
As much as Jason Calacanis can be annoying, This Week in Startups is always a
great show and he seems to have found a great monetization strategy for it -
corporate sponsors of service providers to startup people.

I probably won't be paying for Mixergy on a monthly basis, but if he were to
get a couple companies to sponsor the show for a couple hundred dollars an
episode i would gladly sit through the intermittent plugs he would give
throughout the broadcast.

------
kgopal
The good thing is that the transcripts are still free. So I'll be reading more
and hearing/watching less. Kinda like switching tv for a good novel, I'd
think.

------
noarchy
The best response to this will be to not pay. Watch this week's video, and
maybe save the stream. Take the responsibility for archiving into your own
hands.

~~~
jackowayed
> _Take the responsibility for archiving into your own hands._

That's called copyright infringement.

~~~
modoc
That's time-shifting for personal use... Pretty sure that's legal.

~~~
eli
Not if you had to break even the most trivial content protection schemes to do
it.

------
patio11
Subscribed, on the theory that if I can't get one sale a month out of Mixergy,
I must be doing something wrong.

~~~
Tichy
How do you get sales out of subscribing to Mixergy?

~~~
patio11
The example which most immediately pops to my head is for subscription
businesses: watch the Wufoo interview. They drop three important bits of
information in fifteen seconds: the most popular plan is the middle one, the
highest grossing plan is the most expensive one, and Andrew adds that another
business (CrazyEgg) similarly found that concentrating on the needs of the
higher end of the market was much better ROI on time than concentrating on the
$9 / mo customers.

People have burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars and learned less
about pricing than was included in those 15 seconds.

Andrew draws out gems with sufficient regularity (signal to noise ratio: quite
high) that I'm fairly confident I'll grab at least one idea and improve my
business as a result of it.

On the subject of price points: I wonder what the above says about basing
one's pricing decisions on the opinions of people who think $25 is a lot of
money.

------
vaksel
eh I don't think it's the end of the world, you gotta try different price
points to see what works or what doesn't. + I don't think it'll affect the
true fans who tend to watch these interviews live/same day.

Only change I would do, is make the time limit a little bit longer. Maybe 2-3
weeks/month, before a video goes behind paywall.

The monthly fees are kinda a downer though, until you think about it. Those
people who want to watch all interviews, are better off paying a monthly fee,
instead of being nickle and dimed to death with per video fees.

The whole idea here isn't to charge people, but to get more participation out
of your audience. This way more people will watch people live/right away. And
will be much more likely to discuss it in real time...creating more buzz about
the interviews. Which should lead to even better guests.

\+ think about it...the reason you are complaining that he is starting to
charge...is because you realize just how valuable the content is. And if the
content is valuable...what's $25?

------
ankeshk
Just videos = not worth $25 a month in my humble opinion - especially when the
transcripts are not behind the pay wall.

But if he adds a forum - he can create a good membership site out of mixergy.
And $25 per month for it is doable.

(I personally think its just an experiment to control high bandwidth costs...)

------
scottdrake
This is something all publishers grapple with so I'm not going to fault Andrew
for exploring ways he can make money for his time investment which is
substantial. I think the pricing is a bit high ... I'd be more likely to pay
$100/year for a subscription but I'm not sure if there's enough value in these
interviews to warrant more. There might be but I'll have to think about it.

I also think it's going to prevent new users from discovering the value of the
site and returning/becoming fans. Yes, you can watch one or two recent videos
for free (currently doesn't work?), but I think people become fans when they
can dig into the archive and watch some other interviews. I became a fan after
discovering a link to a video somewhere and then spending a few hours digging
through the archive. I'm not sure people who are just discovering Mixergy will
get out the wallet on the strength of one or two videos, so they'll be less
likely to dig deep and find the value of site. I wouldn't have done that, and
probably wouldn't have returned except for the occasional link that shows up
in a stream somewhere.

It's a tight rope to walk. There are a ton of monetization options he can
explore and I don't blame him from trying. Just hope he doesn't put off his
audience/guests or lose his momentum while trying to find the right path
forward because this is probably the hardest one to sell.

------
OoTheNigerian
I tried watching the EventVue interview <http://mixergy.com/eventvue-josh-
fraser/> which is less that a week but behind a pay wall.

How can the bandwidth be high if it is being hosted on justin.tv? I would
suggest an advertising model where there are short 20 second ads (maybe 5 per
interview). Though I really like the interviews, 300 ponds a year 20
interviews is way too high (I watch about 2 a month).

Best of luck Andrew, I hope it goes well!

~~~
klaut
same here. Was trying to watch <http://mixergy.com/daniel-delaney-vendrtv/>
which was posted on feb 18th (3 days old) but it is behind the pay wall. how
come? basically, any video i am trying to watch is behind a pay wall.

------
js3309
<http://www.justin.tv/mixergy/all>

------
coffee
Here's what Andrew is doing; he's being enterprising:

"An enterprising person is willing to try out new, unusual ways of doing or
achieving something."

I'm not agreeing that this is the best route for him to take, in fact, I don't
think it will work (I could be wrong) - but there's nothing wrong with trying
new things.

Andrew is obviously testing this, just sitting back and absorbing these
comments and the financial results of this test.

I don't think this exact model will work, but at any rate, good luck

------
seanos
Three subscription options: $25, $50 or $100 per month for exactly the same
product. Normally tiered pricing is used with different product variations to
target different market segments more effectively. In this case, since the
product is fixed and surely nobody would voluntarily pay the higher price, he
must be using this as a psychological trick to make the $25 seem more
reasonable - an interesting idea.

~~~
melvinram
I'm sure it's just a test.

~~~
seanos
What is he testing? He is not, for example, testing if people would pay $50
because I'd assume 99.99% of people who would pay $50 will instead pay $25
whilst that is an option.

~~~
melvinram
I didn't say it was a good test. Actually I sent him an email about it as soon
as I saw it. Never-the-less, I still don't think that it makes any sense that
people are acting like whiney babies because Andrew is trying new things.

------
ryanb
I think people may have assumed Mixergy was a philanthropic service to the
entrepreneurial community by Andrew, which is why some here seem quite upset
about this decision..

I don't necessarily think instituting a pay wall for older videos is a bad
idea.. I'd love to see Andrew post some stats for his community about how
successful this decision is/was when the dust settles a bit.

------
paraschopra
I think the pricing model per month is not the best. A much better model would
be a pay per view model, perhaps $5/video?

~~~
djenryte
It looks like the videos are still free on iTunes. Not sure if this will last
or if it will change to a pay per episode like you mentioned.

------
mikecolella
I just signed up simply to support his work even though I watch all the
interviews in the first week anyway. For me, the content is worth more than
$25/month. I would also like to see a forum as added value.

I'm not sure that this is the best possible model, but if it's not then Andrew
will figure it out once he has some data.

------
FreeRadical
Please create an iphone app instead where old interviews can be accessed
simply and charge for the app.

EDIT: simple->simply

~~~
bmelton
Aren't the interviews done in Flash?

------
niyazpk
My first reaction was _well, that sucks_. I was wrong.

I think this is an excellent business model for Mixergy. As a fan of Mixergy,
I am happy that I have a weeks time to listen to the interviews before they go
behind the subscription wall. Andrew, keep up the good work.

~~~
htsh
I think the model is sound as well but the prices are a bit expensive and its
all-or-nothing. I'd love some sort of micropayment option per interview. At
his cheapest option, $25/month, that's either $300/year for interviews, which
is over double the price of my highest paid subscription to anything right now
(the Economist).

They're arguably worth it, but I can see folks with tight budgets not willing
to pay that much for any content.

Also with so many good startup eyeballs I am curious if the sponsorship angle
was considered, specifically from service providers. There seem to be a ton of
lawyers & other products that would kill for eyeballs and ears in Andrew's
market.

I'm a big fan as well but I still find this a bit startling. But I do
appreciate as well the fact that you can watch interviews free for the first
week. That is plenty -- he could have cranked that down to one day and
personally I'd still find my way over there to watch/listen.

------
chris11
I would be really interested in seeing data on how much people decide to pay
for the interviews.

------
plinkplonk
Are the transcripts going behind the paywall too?

~~~
kees
if not give me one reason to pay for the video. content=content. ( BTW, I only
read the transcripts, because it's less time consuming)

~~~
plinkplonk
Well I thought the transcripts were edited with community help. _If_ that were
true, and if I spent some time editing something I thought was going to be
free and then the site owner took it behind a paywall I'd consider it a slimy
move, but that's just me.

(So, I just archived all the available transcripts that I was interested in.
Who knows when _those_ go behind a paywall?)

------
Feynman
Bummer, didn't really see that coming. For some reason I felt like Andrew
didn't need the money (from what little he posts about his background and
experiences with his former company). There was this feel that the main goal
of the site was really to collect and chronicle the modern day entrepreneur...
and really, he was doing a bang up job at it. (Dare I say the best job yet?)

Guess I can't blame him for wanting to profit, but this particular move for
profit just feels cheap. I would've much rather see some other ways of
profiting. i.e. Quarterly Boxed DVD Sets, etc.

------
dpatru
Almost all interviewers profit. So I don't see why an interviewee should be
offended that Andrew is profiting.

Most interviewers profit by charging advertisers. The advertisers then become
the customers and the viewers are just "users." By choosing to charge his
listeners directly Andrew is making his viewers his customers.

A business naturally tries to please its customers. To the extent that
advertisers' and viewers' tastes differ, we can expect Andrew's business to
change for the better: it will be more pleasing to viewers.

~~~
melvinram
I agree. By aligning his success with his audience, his podcast will get
better.

------
startupcomment
"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."

Were you passing judgment on Andrew Warner, as that is not his birth name, but
a professional name that he has adopted?

------
quellhorst
I'm glad that Mixergy is starting to charge. You have to pay the bills some
how. Would also like to see additional content like private forums.

I think the price is a bit high. He should of had a $10/month option and I
would have signed up tonight.

------
bcaulf
I think this is going to hurt viewership, thus making the site less attractive
to interview subjects, and thus further hurting viewership in a feedback loop.

------
siculars
If he isn't really in it to make money I would push the pay wall back to like
a month... or 6. Let the long tail bring some moneys in as his library grows.

------
furtivefelon
Hey guys, i think he has removed the paywall.

This thread is very useful!

------
frederickcook
I subscribe to the video podcast and I have a bunch of old ones I haven't
watched yet. I wonder if he'll shut that down..

------
refresheduk
my money is safe... not worth it.

------
grumpyfart
What about interviewees ? They spent an hour assuming their video would be
available by anyone but later on they found out he started to charge of it?
Does it fair? (I assume that he didn't inform them beforehand)

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.

~~~
chaosmachine
I was just going to post the same thing. If I was an interviewee, I'd be kind
of pissed I'd given my time for free, just so someone else could throw it
behind a paywall.

~~~
ArcticCelt
I am tempted to start contacting some of his old interviewees and ask them
what they think about it. I'll ask them to contact him if they are pissed by
the fact that they were tricked into giving their free time. Many of them
precisely said in those interviews that they were only doing it to give back
to the community.

~~~
ruby35
I'm sorry, but that's a douchebag move if you don't warn Andrew ahead of time.

~~~
rasikjain
Information should always be free to the community and Mixergy should
concentrate on monetization with different ways rather than subscription
model....

~~~
bob345
"Information should always be free"

Wrong.

The provider of that information should be able to charge what he wants. It's
capitalism.

~~~
chrischen
Actually the market will force him to do something. _that's_ capitalism. You
don't just charge whatever you want without regards to market forces.

------
sailormoon
Well, I've read all 60 comments on this thread, and I'm not convinced. I think
this decision is bullshit. The type of people who need to see these videos
don't have the kind of money Andrew is asking for.

What is the ideal story for these videos? That some kid who doesn't know what
to do with his life stumbles across them and is inspired to start a startup.
Is that going to happen with a $25/month paywall? Of course not.

Andrew - what's the purpose of your site? Is it a social service? Or is it a
for-profit business? I do not get the impression you are poor. I cannot
imagine how the bandwidth costs of the site exceed $100/month or so (and if
they do, talk to me). But if you see it as a for-profit business, I think it
will fail. And if it's supposed to be a "giving back" social dividend for your
own success - and that's honestly the impression I got - then this nickel-and-
diming will shoot it in the head.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_The type of people who need to see these videos don't have the kind of money
Andrew is asking for._

I think that's the strange thing about this.

On one hand, Andrew makes out to only have an interest in helping others out.
But then he starts charging. It's starting to look like the guy who wants to
teach you how to make a million dollars next year -- if you'll only buy his
$29.95 book

Of course, it's his site to do with it what he wants. And I don't begrudge a
man for wanting to make a few bucks. But this doesn't fit into what he _says_
he's trying to do.

It's almost like he can't help himself -- he wants to tell a story a few years
from now about how this venture made X dollars. As if by doing it for free,
somehow it undermines his image as a crafty businessperson.

But that's just idle speculation on my part.

------
ruby35
$25/month is not a big deal. Andrew works his butt off setting up these
interviews, researching the interviewees and their companies, and then talking
to these folks for 60 minutes each time (not to mention paying for
transcription services, hosting fees, etc.)

The sense of entitlement here is appalling.

~~~
Tichy
I can only speak for myself: I only think it's weird that the interviews were
given when the site was free. If the interviewees are fine with it, and
obviously for the coming interviews, I wish him luck. I personally won't
subscribe, but then entrepreneurs also aren't entitled to me having to buy
their product.

25$ not being much: if you are not Ramen profitable, it is (It's 5 days of
food). To put it in perspective: 25$ is the price of my internet flatrate or a
book like "Founders At Work". At the moment I don't buy every book I fancy.

Not saying the interviews are not worth 25$ (don't know), but it is not a
"sense of entitlement" to simply have other priorities for spending 25$.

~~~
bob345
IMHO, the value that most people here derive from Mixergy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1-tank of gas

