15 Jul '07 20:02>
Originally posted by PhlabibitOf course, we all know that.
the admins have no plan to give people more games just because they move more.
We are arguing "should they?"
What are the benefits vs. drawbacks?
Originally posted by kenanIt sounds more like the logic as a non-subscriber who would like to play 10 games at a time, but wouldn't like to subscribe. If you'd like to subscribe, why don't you just pay up? Your solution might give non-subs an incentive to move more frequently so that they can earn more games sooner, but I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe.
With all due respect your opinion, I would like to reply you with my business logic as a non-subscriber --who would like to subscribe but does not need more than 10 games at a time.
Originally posted by PhlabibitI agree.
Why improve it for people who don't pay?
Easy. They don't pay. I believe you feel you get enough for free, so I'm not taking a dig at you, I'm just saying... don't you get enough for free? Shouldn't there be incentive to pay up? Why reward people who don't want (or can't) pay to play?
Everyone here has internet access, how much does that cost them a year? A whole lot more is the general answer.
P-
Originally posted by NordlysThere's no way I'm going to subscribe. I'm only 11,571 moves away from a free tournament.
Your solution might give non-subs an incentive to move more frequently so that they can earn more games sooner, but I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe.
Originally posted by RagnorakI wasn't saying that it was likely to keep many people from subscribing, I was saying that I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe. For most people it probably wouldn't make any difference. But if someone doesn't want to play many games, but still thinks six is a bit too little, it might make them decide not to subscribe and put up with the game limit until they get extra games. There might also be some subscribers who would decide not to resubscribe.
There's no way I'm going to subscribe. I'm only 11,571 moves away from a free tournament.
D
Originally posted by NordlysYou are either missing my point or trying to divert to issue to another perspective.
I wasn't saying that it was likely to keep many people from subscribing, I was saying that I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe. For most people it probably wouldn't make any difference. But if someone doesn't want to play many games, but still thinks six is a bit too little, it might make them decide not to subscribe and put up with th ...[text shortened]... y get extra games. There might also be some subscribers who would decide not to resubscribe.
Originally posted by incandenzaYes. You are right, the major target is the non-subscribing members! The goal is to keep the satisfied from the free service so that they can subsrcibe. It's like a try it and if you like it buy it.
The way it could work is by providing an incentive for non-subscribers not to leave the site completely. The "reward" could be so distant and insignificant that it's not really worth sticking around to get it as opposed to just subscribing; but still, some people would be persuaded by the psychological effect of a reward to stick around.
A lot of peop ...[text shortened]... subscriptions. You want as many of them as possible to stick around for as long as possible.
Originally posted by kenanSurely it is more important [financially speaking] to keep the paying customers happy as a priority?
Yes. You are right, the major target is the non-subscribing members! The goal is to keep the satisfied from the free service so that they can subsrcibe. It's like a try it and if you like it buy it.
Earlier in this thread, I pulled out some stats from MAP of the month stats, an -extra extra ultra extremely very very active- non-subscriber would play 4000 mo ...[text shortened]... .
This could work and would not hurt the business but instead indirectly help the site grow.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have to say I have come around to this way of thinking after reading this thread. Surely the business case goes along the lines of 'We have x thousand users who access the site every day, and now we've increased exposure to our ad space through this incentive. Therefore more users will be coming to your site from ours.'
But non-subs also contribute to the finances, don't they?
RHP gets money from the ads for the number of members who have to look at the ads. No ads, no money from there.
I pay my sub fee to not having to look at the ads (among other good reasons).
Originally posted by GarethNichollsIt would be nice to look in the book-keeping:
I have to say I have come around to this way of thinking after reading this thread. Surely the business case goes along the lines of 'We have x thousand users who access the site every day, and now we've increased exposure to our ad space through this incentive. Therefore more users will be coming to your site from ours.'
It is only the non-subs who ...[text shortened]... way it makes sense to have more non-sub users, or to have the same number making more moves.
Originally posted by kenanI think the goal is to have the non-subscribers UNsatisfied with what they have and wanting more - so they subscribe.
The goal is to keep the satisfied from the free service so that they can subsrcibe. It's like a try it and if you like it buy it.