Monetizing Failure | Hacker News Reader

Monetizing Failure

donnfelker.com

21 pointsdonnfelker13 comments

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.

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?

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?

I totally get the 5K, 10K, Marathon thing. Those can be individual goals that someone wants to be part of. Sometimes someone wants to say they ran the NY Marathon and to do that you need to pay to be a part of it. Same thing could be said for the CrossFit Open. However, when you perform at the open, you're still working out at home or at your box (gym) with the same people you always have. Nothing is really that different. So this is where I feel the disconnect is.

If its a goal, then hell, spend $20 and do it. But if its not a goal, then why pay $20? I don't get it either.

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.

Exactly. Committing something of worth acts as a super-token. It's way of illustrating your commitment and (internally) reinforcing that commitment.

One of the psychological effects is that Personal Bests almost always come from competitive events. I'm sure this is true of the CrossFit competiton as well.

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.

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.

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.

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 :/

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.

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

Still no need for cursing, or for ad hominem remarks. HN is at its best when this does not occur.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com