Version: 2008
  • On CHOW: Can nutmeg make you hallucinate?

Comments on: Would you pay $1 a month for Facebook?

Yes, Facebook continues to have meteoric growth. But it's also bleeding millions of dollars with no proven business model. So, how does it make money? One obvious way would be to charge a nominal fee per month. But how much is kosher?

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 2 of 7 pages (181 Comments)
by dawescott April 17, 2009 1:08 PM PDT
I would pay $1 a month given that Facebook remains unchanged (in the sense of popularity, use by others, etc). In fact, I'll give you a buck-and-a-half if you remove the annoying ads that generally are for 'free' computers and challenging my IQ.

The issue that we all know is that Facebook would not remain unchanged (and I would guess is one of the main reasons people woudn't pay), which would devalue the site greatly. It would be better for Facebook to work more closely with businesses that have created fan pages to allow them to build those out to become more valuable to the business. Maybe start now by creating fan page targeted applications that would create value for businesses and charge a fee. The fee would have to be low at this point since most businesses are still trying to find a good way to prove social media is valuable (we know it is...but how valuable?). I don't have all the answers, but instilling value to places that would pay (i.e. businesses) is going to be a better route than trying to bill the users.

Facebook has created a great website that attracts millions of people. Now they need to find a creative way for businesses to interact and generate revenue. This will be the profit generator for Facebook...not targeted pop up ads or billing users.
Reply to this comment
by johncokos April 17, 2009 1:12 PM PDT
So, you don't want to pay a dollar a month, and you don't want them to have advertising in your way because it's "excessive", yet you still want it to be free. And not just free, but just the way you want it.

Must be nice living in fantasy land. Out here in the real world, businesses are built to provide a service or fill a need. Optimally, the people that use that service pay for it. In a less perfect world, you let them use it for free,but use sponsorships to fund it. You wouldn't expect your mechanic to fix your car for free because he's got a bunch of Pennzoil posters on his wall, would you? Just because you can physically touch the car and prove that it got fixed doesn't make his service any more or less valuable than what facebook (or twitter, or myspace, etc) does. Both are providing a much sought after service. For some reason, though, everyone's got this notion that if it's online, it's got to be free.

And to answer this question: "How many businesses provide absolutely nothing of value and expect people to pay for it?" -- the answer is easy. "Value" is subjective. You may find no value in Facebook (and quite frankly, neither do I), but millions of people do. To them, the very notion of having someone that gives a crap what their cat is up to, or what celebrity they look like has tremendous value.

I'm tired of the "me, me, me, everything for me and make it free" entitlement mentality that's so pervasive in this country and especially online.
Reply to this comment
by johnqh April 17, 2009 1:12 PM PDT
The so called "social network" sites are built on network effects, and the reverse is true. When users exit, it will snowball and pretty soon nobody would be on facebook anymore (remember friendster?)
Reply to this comment
by BlitzBoy1120 April 17, 2009 1:18 PM PDT
No way will I pay Facebook a penny. I'm gonna pay them for them to keep my stuff? No way. If it's seriously gonna go down to this, I might head to MySpace, I like Facebook better, but not if I gotta pay.
Reply to this comment
by Jimega36 April 17, 2009 1:22 PM PDT
Why not segmenting the users based on usage pattern and corresponding prices? My perspective is that Facebook should find a way to make the heavy users that feel they get the most of the service pay more (more photos, higher bandwidth used, more events organized, more interractions, etc.) because the small users are not as expensive but add value to the network. Take linkedIn for example, some users are willing to pay for the extra service because they felt limited by sending only a few emails. I take that LinkedIn is different (recruiters paying...) but the key objective here is make those that value the add-ons pay for them. Moving forward, it is hard to go backwards by making people pay for what they already have - unless you wait a few years that everyone is hooked/networked into the monopoly then price up (like Windows). So I think the best way would be for Facebook to introduce a fabulous new service - and its limited use would be lifted only if members pay a fixed fee. Would I pay 10$ or any amount because some heavy users send photos every 5 minutes? You will have guessed my answer.
Reply to this comment
by impatientgirl April 17, 2009 1:25 PM PDT
Free for nominal service, yearly fee of $10 for enhanced service, with the option of having the bill bundled into your credit card bill if you use it to pay for it. You get the convience of not having to pay it, and the CC co gets the $.
Reply to this comment
by MikeG8r April 17, 2009 1:34 PM PDT
How about a tier, free to post 1 or 2 updates per day, pay for unlimited updates. Maybe that will cut down on people who post every 5 minutes. There's nothing worse than having your home page filled with crap from that girl you barely knew in High School.
Reply to this comment
by badmojo42 April 17, 2009 1:36 PM PDT
I wouldn't pay, they should be able to make enough off of advertisements. Would you pay 1$/month to use Google?
Reply to this comment
by professionaladventurer April 17, 2009 1:38 PM PDT
How much would you pay to use Google? The value of the service is in it's cost to users.
Reply to this comment
by rmludwig April 17, 2009 1:40 PM PDT
With all the ads and other crap on the screen while I'm trying to use Facebook, I see no reason why I should pay a dime for it. Those ads and the other subtle means of getting funds from me (e.g.: any advanced option in "L'il Green Patch") should make doggie piles of money for Facebook.
Reply to this comment
by kpepps17 April 17, 2009 1:42 PM PDT
For me, Facebook is not worth much. I like it and I use it. Would I miss it if I had to pay for it? I seriously doubt it. Facebook needs to find a source of advertising revenue and keep it free. Sure there those that will pay to play but I suspect a lot of members will jump ship. All it is is glorified email. Classmates never got my money and neither will this. Facbook should sell games and raffles. That might make $$$$. Sell movie viewings of box office releases.
Reply to this comment
by PandaSage1221 April 17, 2009 1:47 PM PDT
Up to a few months ago, I'd probably have paid up to $30/year for Facebook. But, I'm kinda over it now.. (I say, while logged in through Facebook Connect..) I have no intention of just quitting Facebook, but it's certainly not worth money to me.

And I'm in college. We're (theoretically) the target audience.
Reply to this comment
by Pete Saman April 17, 2009 1:57 PM PDT
Time for a government bailout :-)
Reply to this comment
by Jack K1 April 17, 2009 2:06 PM PDT
Facebook could offer a no-advertisement version for a fee.
Reply to this comment
by Angmarr April 17, 2009 2:07 PM PDT
Wouldn't pay 1 f-ing dime!
Reply to this comment
by deucedavis April 17, 2009 2:10 PM PDT
Yes they should charge.

No I would not pay, but many would.
Reply to this comment
by KA13579 April 17, 2009 2:29 PM PDT
Come on, people -- especially teens, aren't willing to pay a dime for extra content over the web. There's always a free source to get it from. If Facebook charged, then everyone would flock to Myspace. If Myspace charged, then they would flock to Twitter or some other site.

I use Facebook frequently, as do most of my friends and family, but none of us would use if if they charged. Even if it were only $1, I wouldn't use it.
Reply to this comment
by rugratz2222 April 17, 2009 2:32 PM PDT
There are many personal websites out there now clamoring for a piece of the social network pie, for free too. IF facebook charges ANYTHING, they need a "free version" for people like me who WON'T pay anything especially because we hardly use it and a premium version for those hardcore fans - with options for monthly and annual up-front. Since the owner is a billionaire, he is doing something right with the advertising. otherwise, myspace will take over or any of the other free ones will rise up to fill the void that facebook will give up.
Reply to this comment
by biffhenerson April 17, 2009 2:34 PM PDT
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter = passing fads. People are just having fun experimenting with the new technology and trying to find justification for their new expensive computers. The novilty will soon wear off and we will be on to something new, bigger, better, faster, cooler. Those sites are so yesterday. Yawn. Next please.
Reply to this comment
by dinjin201 April 17, 2009 2:37 PM PDT
I think the best idea is to charge $10 a year, but make it an OPTION!!!!

for paying users:
1. NO ADS. - this would greatly increase the speed at which they could access the website.
2. Mabye, make a chat room interface.

For non paying users....
1. Keep the ads... get some more ads.
2. maybe un upload limit for photos, and videos you are allowd to store?
Reply to this comment
Showing 2 of 7 pages (181 Comments)
advertisement

About Fully Equipped

Executive Editor David Carnoy has been covering electronics for CNET since 2000, arriving at the company just as "that whole Internet bust thing" happened. Early on, he launched CNET's cell phone coverage, earning him the nickname "Wireless Dave," then moved on to bigger and broader things. Hunkered down in New York City, he oversees CNET's Home and Hardware reviews, which includes all things related to home theater, PC, and digital imaging. Fully Equipped covers the gamut of gadgets and gizmos and, to keep things lively, Carnoy likes to alternate between writing useful, advice-oriented pieces or thought-provoking columns with inflammatory headlines designed to elicit commentary from readers. Fully Equipped is the longest continuously running column on CNET.com.

For older columns, read the Fully Equipped archive (2002-2008).

Add this feed to your online news reader

Fully Equipped topics