Mixergy is now a paid subscription service for interviews older than a week

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

When I found out about this I emailed Andrew. This is what i wrote:<p><i>I noticed recently that you've started charging for your older interviews. Good on you, I hope you do good business.<p>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.</i><p>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.

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

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.<p>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.

Honestly, instead of being a bunch of a-holes and complaining about it. Why not just offer him a suggestion here: <a href="http://mixergy.wufoo.com/forms/what-price-do-you-think-is-fair/" rel="nofollow">http://mixergy.wufoo.com/forms/what-price-do-you-think-is-fa...</a> 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.<p>This is his start up, it is his right to experiment as he desires.

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.<p>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.<p>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.

I predicted this move several days ago based on this comment.<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1130231" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1130231</a><p>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.

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

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?

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.

I wonder, were the interviewees aware of this and are they OK with it?<p>Bummer, I did not even watch the full PG yet, an it was 11 days ago.

We need Andrew to interview Andrew about this decision:)<p>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.

Also, Andrew Warner is not exactly lacking funds.<p><a href="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/" rel="nofollow">http://www.quicksprout.com/2009/04/08/the-andrew-warner-stor...</a><p>So he's charging because he can, not because he must.

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.<p>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.

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.

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.

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

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>+ 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?

Just videos = not worth $25 a month in my humble opinion - especially when the transcripts are not behind the pay wall.<p>But if he adds a forum - he can create a good membership site out of mixergy. And $25 per month for it is doable.<p>(I personally think its just an experiment to control high bandwidth costs...)

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.<p>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.<p>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.

I tried watching the EventVue interview <a href="http://mixergy.com/eventvue-josh-fraser/" rel="nofollow">http://mixergy.com/eventvue-josh-fraser/</a> which is less that a week but behind a pay wall.<p>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).<p>Best of luck Andrew, I hope it goes well!

<a href="http://www.justin.tv/mixergy/all" rel="nofollow">http://www.justin.tv/mixergy/all</a>

Here's what Andrew is doing; he's being enterprising:<p>"An enterprising person is willing to try out new, unusual ways of doing or achieving something."<p>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.<p>Andrew is obviously testing this, just sitting back and absorbing these comments and the financial results of this test.<p>I don't think this exact model will work, but at any rate, good luck

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.

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..<p>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.

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?

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.<p>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.

Please create an iphone app instead where old interviews can be accessed simply and charge for the app.<p>EDIT: simple-&#62;simply

My first reaction was <i>well, that sucks</i>. I was wrong.<p>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.

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

Are the transcripts going behind the paywall too?

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?)<p>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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Hey guys, i think he has removed the paywall.<p>This thread is very useful!

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..

my money is safe... not worth it.

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)<p>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.<p>That's why I doubt if anyone would actually bother to subscribe.<p>Give it 3 months then I'm sure he'll change the model.

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.<p>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.<p>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.

$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.)<p>The sense of entitlement here is appalling.