Webcast Pricing Poll

Interesting and unusual webcast pricing poll results as of this posting:
At $10 pricing, 28 customers, total monthly income $280.
At $7 pricing, 12 additional customers, thus 40 total, monthly income still $280.
At $5, 16 additional customers, thus 56 total, monthly income still $280.

also leads to wondering if pricing higher is better for the service provider.. same income bet less overhead costs and less costs for internet service and less complaints on bad days...

upperdeck
also leads to wondering if pricing higher is better for the service provider.. same income bet less overhead costs and less costs for internet service and less complaints on bad days...

Perhaps an indication of the different priorities of the "service provider" (CSTV, in this case) and the institution contracting for the service (Cornell Athletics). I should think Cornell would want as many subscribers watching their athletic events as possible: alumni (read "prospective donors", families of team members, prospects and their families, secondary school/junior hockey coaches, etc. The difficult-to-fathom situation with CSTV's non-acceptance of Canadian credit cards is another example that just makes you want to slap your head.

But with more subscribers they could also advertise and get some more for advertising sales.
Clearly Cornell does not care if any alumni follow our sports teams. I don't think that will every change unless a fanatic hockey fan becomes one of the two or three truly powerful trustees whose suggestions are followed.

My Answer is: NONE

I want to pay per game.

That actually makes the most sense on a lot of levels, both for the provider and the user. The problem is with micropayments. Credit card transactions are already taking a fixed amount from every transaction plus a percentage. When you get down to the $1-2 range, that becomes a very significant portion of the charge.

CowbellGuy
That actually makes the most sense on a lot of levels, both for the provider and the user. The problem is with micropayments. Credit card transactions are already taking a fixed amount from every transaction plus a percentage. When you get down to the $1-2 range, that becomes a very significant portion of the charge.

Some retailers have already negotiated out of that on an individual basis with the credit card companies - for instance, Apple's iTunes Store, which for damn sure isn't forking over 29 cents plus 2% for every 99-cent transaction. Whether CSTV or other similar providers have the clout to do the same is a different question.

CowbellGuy
That actually makes the most sense on a lot of levels, both for the provider and the user. The problem is with micropayments. Credit card transactions are already taking a fixed amount from every transaction plus a percentage. When you get down to the $1-2 range, that becomes a very significant portion of the charge.

I wonder if they could set up a sort of declining balance thing, then. You buy $10 or $20 worth of credits, and then apply them on a per-game basis.

ftyuv
I wonder if they could set up a sort of declining balance thing, then. You buy $10 or $20 worth of credits, and then apply them on a per-game basis.

Instead of "All-Access," they could call it...well..."EZ-Pass."

Al DeFlorio

ftyuv
I wonder if they could set up a sort of declining balance thing, then. You buy $10 or $20 worth of credits, and then apply them on a per-game basis.

Instead of "All-Access," they could call it...well..."EZ-Pass."

And it would still be cheaper than crossing the George Washington Bridge.