1/31/2002 10:47:12 AM
Posted By:
Robert Spears
Before debating the merits of this strategy, I recommend reading the Fool's letter to their customers announcing the pricing change: http://www.fool.com/features/2002/a020128.htm .Although I have not used their website extensively over the years, I have always been impressed with their brand, mission, and services. At the core they are helping people to overcome their fear of money matters and to take constructive action. (BTW: The charge averages out to $.04 a day for charter members signing up for 2-years totaling $29.95). What other assets could be more unique, valuable, and harder to replicate than one's online community? The smart people at AOL know that their proprietary IM (instant-messaging) and online communities are key to getting and keeping members (i.e. friends, family, and enthusiasts want to stay together online). As online technology and features fade into the background, online consumers are becoming attached to the unique communication and personalities of sites. If people have been willing for years to pay exorbitant rates to belong to country clubs, I think it is a safe bet that consumers will pay fair fees to belong to quality online affinity groups (e.g. websites with active communities). Long-term, I equate culture-of-free communities with: low-quality, high-spam, transient personalities, and low-trust. Whereas the culture-of-fee will consist of: high-quality, low-spam, permanent personalities, and trust.
|
