Comments on: Social Media: Pay to Play?

By: Paula J. Anderson

Paula J. Anderson — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:34:11 +0000

No, I don’t want to pay for social media. And so far so good. Trying to get a class reunion together and have lost touch with so many. Right now 87 of us are in touch on facebook (for free). But we wanted to find more classmates so we tried classmates.com. I’ve received a message from someone but I can’t read the message or even see who sent the message unless I pay $9.95, or unless the person who sends me a message is a Gold Member.

Sorry classmates.com. Not THAT interested.

By: paul jahn

paul jahn — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:20:19 +0000

If your scenario were to happen tomorrow, I most likely would use paid options as long as they are reasonable.

For those that already offer premium services, I’m guessing they do well. LinkedIn paid accounts are probably valuable for recruiters and I happily pay Flickr 49 bucks for a 2-year pro account.

By: Leslie Berg

Leslie Berg — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:22:13 +0000

Sometimes the addage, “you get what you pay for” is true. The “free” apps often have software issues and need to be reinstalled or updated often.

Considering half the applications I have on my phone now I had to pay for, I don’t think it will matter much to me if they all follow that business plan.

By: Jason Douglas

Jason Douglas — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:24:19 +0000

If the price point was low enough; EX: $1.99 per month, or something similar, the people that are active, along with companies, would gladly pay for a social media channel… until something else is proven to be better and free. I would pay to use twitter and Facebook, even You Tube, if it was priced properly.

You would lose the fair-weather users and spam, which would make channels such as Twitter more attractive to the fair-weather user.

By: Travis

Travis — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:41:35 +0000

Agree with Ed; there will always be trivial content available for free- it’s not like they are offering masterworks of art or philosophy… it’s just Twitter : )

By: Ed Kohler

Ed Kohler — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:03:44 +0000

None of the services you mention are truly free. They’re all add supported and many offer freemium options where you can pay for additional features or access.

Free will never not be an option on sites that benefit from network effects. That day will not come because if it ever did it would be the day that a new free alternative would launch.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:54:25 +0000

I don’t think I would pay for personal use. Seems counter-intuitive for somebody working on the business side of social media, but being free is the major positive that comes with being involved online for personal use. Furhtermore, personal use is what drives the necessity of business online.

I think Twitter has indicated that they understand the importance of offering a free version for the general public and a paid version for companies trying to make money with their services.

The general public that uses social networking for personal reasons have come to expect that the services be free until you need/want upgrades. Expectations have been set and moving toward a fully paid model would likely indicate a mass exodus from most online communities. Consider other media – they all started out with a cost and have become cheaper. Social networks exploded because they started free, they can’t reverse the trend without adverse consequences.

Good post on an interesting subject, Jason. Thanks

- Scott