

Monetizing Failure - donnfelker
http://www.donnfelker.com/monetizing-failure/

======
jere
Perhaps I'm missing something, but wouldn't you be paying $20 to enter the
competition? It seems like the fee isn't directly tied to getting your score
posted on a website and the article is using that as a distraction. Isn't this
how races and competitions have worked for a long time?

It _is_ an interesting thought that most people will be "failing" and yet
they're willing to pay money. On the other hand, there's a lot more to
competing than winning. I've run the "Krispy Kreme Challenge" a few times and
while I wouldn't mind winning it, I know my registration fee is really going
towards a fun race, a spectacle involving thousands of people (many in
costume), and edible and wearable souvenirs.

~~~
donnfelker
I completely agree. There is more to a competition. Competing in itself is
fun. But as I said in the note at the top of the post, this is my opinion. I
see no reason is paying $20 to a company just to post my score on line. YOu
can still do the competition without paying the $20. Thats all I'm saying. The
only difference is that you wont have your name on a website. The $20 simply
"registers" you online. You can still compete. Only difference is that if you
were GOOD enough to make it to Regionals or the Games you'd have to have had
competed in the Open. Again, these are the exceptional athletes. Not the
normal folks. I'm not saying DONT compete, but I'm asking the question of why
pay $20 to compete if you can do it for free?

------
kosei
People pay hundreds of dollars every year to enter running events (marathons,
5Ks, etc). I don't understand this either. I can run for free whenever I want.
I don't see the psychology around CrossFit as being significantly different.
Am I missing something?

~~~
brianwawok
Paying $150 to run the chicago marathon gives me

a) 30k other people to run the same race with at the same time

b) About 15 places where people hand me water if I want it

c) An officially sanctioned time that could let me qualify for Boston or
another big race if I do well enough

d) The energy of thousands of people cheering me on

e) Streets closed and stoplights turned off that I normally would not be able
to run down

That seems like something of value. Sure I run for free all the time too. But
races have cool parts to them. The $20 here seems a lot less cool.

------
Mz
Insurance companies, lotteries, Las Vegas -- all use similar monetization
schemes to what is described here. There have to be a whole lot of "losers" to
pay for a few big winners, keep the doors open, etc. I doubt any of them are
going away any time soon and I can think of a whole lot of reasons people pay
for those things. For example, for fun, for hope during hard financial times,
for peace of mind. (Insurance usually claims to be selling peace of mind more
than anything else.)

Also, donn, an FYI: rebutting every single comment posted here is a) bad form
and b) a great way to make sure no one fucking wants to discuss your piece.

~~~
donnfelker
Thanks for the comment. I'm fairly certain cursing isn't necessary. I'm not
attempting to rebut every comment, simply making statements. Its all in
opinion. I agree with your statement as well. These monetization schemes will
never go anywhere. They're very successful.

~~~
Mz
Let me put that another way: Do yourself a favor and shut up and let other
people talk about what you wrote.

I'm done here. I doubt you can be clued.

~~~
girvo
He replied... twice? How is that something that requires you to attack him?
This is HN, and someone like yourself is well aware that sort of comment you
tacked on the end of a _good_ comment isn't welcome here, and the ad hominem
above isn't either.

I'm just trying to work out what I'm missing here, seemed rather out of the
blue :/

~~~
Mz
What you are missing is that he replied fairly promptly to the first three
replies here, including mine in spite of me commenting in advance that there
would be more discussion if he did not do that. This is likely part of why it
was not generating discussion. (Please note that people are now spending more
time talking to me about my presumed "attack" than talking about his article.
So I stand by my observation.)

I was trying to be helpful, which is likely a mistake, for a lot of reasons.

~~~
girvo
I'm not missing that, that is exactly what I said. There was two replies, and
a reply to you unless those replies and the parents were deleted without a
trace...

I fully understand being helpful, but foul language and dismissiveness isn't
really okay here normally; you've been here far longer than I have, and I
respect your comments normally, just seemed a bit odd is all. _shrugs_

