  chakeyPremium
join:2004-06-14
Gladstone, NJ | Fee vs. Free It has worked for the television and radio industry for years. Offering a fee-based ad-free version or a free ad-driven version works. Either way, the offering company makes money. | |
|
 | | | Re: Fee vs. Free said by chakey:It has worked for the television and radio industry for years. Offering a fee-based ad-free version or a free ad-driven version works. Either way, the offering company makes money. Well at least one company disagrees with that conclusion - MobilePro. And since Sacramento has decided it won't allow an ad-free fee model, that option is gone from their bidding process.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| lawrence171Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada | Oh, but people bitch about these ads all the time.
With TV, they can find a way of not allowing you to skip the ads.
With the internet/computer software, people can easily crack their softwares.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake? | |
|
| | crazy Sacramento made a really stupid move here in my opinion. I was really looking forward to free, no-ad wifi in downtown even though it would have been relatively slow. I can't imagine an ad-based model making money. None of the classic free internet companies still offer an ad-based free service, and many of them went under. It's just not a viable business model for internet access. | |
|
| | | Re: crazy I can't wait until I pick up my phone and hear an advertisement before I get to make a call! It will be great! Free with ads doesn't always work. | |
|
|  sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Im sure everyone would be looking forward to free no-ads WiFi... 
Except whos going to paying for it? No thanks from this Taxpayer.
--
90% of People who read this sig are idiots. Are you one of them? | |
|
|
|
