Hacker News Reader

Comment by grumpyfart | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

If you were one of his interviewees, you'd understand that hard work must be rewarded. Business models change with time. Every successful entrepreneur (including his interviewees) knows that. I highly doubt they'll perceive this as bait & switch.

Why would they not perceive it as bait and switch? It is bait and switch.

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.

You're relying your argument on an assumption. Fail.

Syntax error.

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.

Andrew has interviewed me twice for Mixergy. I don't begrudge him for making money off of his full-time job - I get promo for my projects through his platform.

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

Warn Andrew ahead of time? You've got be joking. Why doesn't Andrew pay a fee to those he's interviewed already now, in this bait and switch interwebz journalism

You're relying your argument on an assumption. Fail.

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

Information should always be free to the community

Bullshit. Information is power.

Mixergy should concentrate on monetization with different ways rather than subscription model

Agreed.

"Information should always be free"

Wrong.

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

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.

LOL^^^^^ This is another account created one hour ago.

...here's an account created minutes ago, and pg can check this IP to see if it's from Argentina.

The HN lynch mob is pathetic.

Its not hard to spoof an i.p. address, heck posting from one of the easy to use myspace proxy websites will give you the effect of a USA i.p. address.

Good point. The interviewees had an understanding that this content will be freely available and now that's changed. Then again, maybe he told them the content will be free but there is a possibility that one day it will not be free anymore. Either way, the better approach would have been to leave existing interviews freely available and start applying the pricing structure from the present onward.

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 hope this won't sound wrong, this is mixergy's about page:

   ...I used credit cards and ingenuity to create a $30+ mil / year (in sales) internet business...

Sorry but after creating a $30+ mil annual sale company trying to sell videos for 25$ to max. 1000 people in a lifetime is not a great step forward for an entrepreneur.

Maybe he has a grand master plan to make more 30+$ mils with mixergy ....

Not sure what his plans are but hey, at least it'll be profitable... which is more than a lot of enterpreneurs can claim.

I don't agree that these interviews are just chit-chat and feel that I have learned a lot from these interviews. I have subscribed on these nice (free) interviews for 9 months now and listen to them many times a week. Paying the subscription fee is a great way to pay Andrew back for all the hard work he has put into these interviews.

It is probably fine if he is giving a portion to the people he interviewed. People go to mixergy to hear from them. It does also push people to check out interviews before they go behind the pay wall.

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.

A really bad business move is doing something that isn't sustainable. Given that giving his interviews away for free isn't sustainable, putting his content behind a paywall is probably an experiment to see if he can build a sustainable business.

Thanks. I think part of the problem is that people will see this as just a show as long as I don't take risks to elevate the work.

What's wrong with "just a show"? A show can both achieve a lot and can be worth a lot.

The distinction is entertainment versus actionable education. I get the sense that Andrew's goal for Mixergy is to be the latter.

Shows can certainly be educational and actionable, while still being entertaining...

"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."

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.

I recently made 6 figures in one hour when people paid for my content.

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.

There is nothing wrong with chit-chat :) Actually I do love chit-chat.

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.

These interviews are pretty dense with information if you are ready to pay attention and take action. These are people who have "done it" and are teaching you what worked for them.

Yes, spoon feeding days are over. And yes, that is a good thing.

To extend on what you said. I think the price points are wrong. I'm not sure the interviews are strong enough to justify at minimum a $25/month recurring subscription. I would potentially pay a few dollars (prob not though). If nothing else I would rather pay as I go ($1 a video or something) as opposed to the subscription. What it comes down to is that a lot of these people are being interviewed elsewhere that can be consumed for free. Without offering something different I'm not sur ehte price point is justified...

I've tested many prices for my content products at iwillteachyoutoberich.com/scroogestrategy.com/earn1k.com.

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.

Sounds like a good interview brewing. I agree though I don't have the numbers to back up my position yet. Would love to hear the lessons learned from your experience.

The issue I see here though is that people will pay a lot of money if they think that they can get really high value out of your videos, such as you claiming to have a short cut to millions.

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.

If that works, he'll make more profit at the expense of the community.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com