Premium Quality - Serve Differentiated!

[Bram]

I wrote the following for StarCityGames. At first glance, it might seem odd to submit an article that criticizes a website’s new policy to that very website. One could even question the point of writing said article at all, since chances of it getting published would be slim to none. I talked to Knut about it and he said it's extremely unlikely that is sees print as frontpage discussion on the premium system will likely remain staff-only.

Even so, I submitted it as I think it contains an interesting suggestion and might give the staff something to discuss. Knut has kindly passed it on to SCG staff, and I decided to post my article here so as to explore the viability of the option (this means you guys need to discuss it, or it'll all have been an excersize in futility). Anywat, this really isn’t a critical piece at all. It simply states a fact, a premise and a suggestion. So let’s get on with it.

The Fact.

A few days ago I surfed over to this very site and immediately noticed Pete Hoefling’s announcement entitled ‘Introducing StarCityGames.com Premium!’ Now I could lie and say that it cheered me up just thinking of how beneficial it would be to the Magic scene, but I won’t, and it didn’t. Actually, it felt a lot more like the time my gym upped its contribution fees without informing me, or possibly more like when the local cinema ended a mutually lucrative deal that involved me seeing all their movies for free in exchange for me writing reviews about them on my website. OK, so maybe the lucrative part wasn’t mutual at all and fair’s fair: I haven’t written a review since Pirates of the Caribbean came out. But you know what I mean. One could speak of ‘dot communism’, ‘freeloading’ or simply ‘whining’ but the fact is, no one likes to suddenly pay for stuff they’re used to getting for free.

But here’s the thing. After first scanning Pete’s article and sulking for a bit, I actually read it. If you haven’t, I suggest you do (especially if you’re going to whine about it like me). What he says makes sense. And what’s more, I actually believe it. It’s not just a ‘you need to pay for what you’re used to’ thing: it’s more of a package deal. You get more content. You get better content. You get useful sales statistics. You get live coverage of big tournaments. Put simply, you get a lot more than what you used to, for a mere thirty bucks a year. A bargain at double the price (and if you take out a monthly subscription, you will be paying double the price). But that’s not the point. I believe that this could work out great for the community as a whole, and ensures the continuity of the site. Certainly, StarCityGames is an asset we do not want to lose. But that’s not my point. A subscription really is a great deal if you care about the bonuses. But here’s the problem: I don’t.

I’m a Vintage player at heart. Now StarCityGames.com is the only website other than TheManaDrain.com that gives us grumpy old Type One players the time of day. And not only that: it regularly has insightful and even groundbreaking articles on the format. Don’t get me wrong: I love StarCityGames. I don’t love it like I love my girlfriend, my car or, say, democracy, but rather like how I love flipping through a really good magazine at the barbershop. And I treat it as such. Vintage experts like Stephen Menendian keep hammering on about how important it is for Vintage players to keep up with developments in other formats and possibly even play them, if only to hone your skills. They’re right, of course. But I just can’t find the time. Vintage is my hobby, and while I’m as competitive as the next guy (and would like to think I T8 just a little more often than the next guy) I am just not willing to read articles on issues relevant to Extended or Standard. While it’s true that time is something you make rather than have, I refuse to because I’m not interested in them.

But what about all the good stuff StarCityGames does for Vintage? Isn’t it time to give a little love back to Pete? Aye, it is. One might point out that the fee is far from excessive and that Vintage players go around wielding decks that have single cards in them that alone would pay for a lifetime subscription (assuming they smoke a lot). However things being as they are, with me living in The Netherlands and as such not being able to visit any of their amazing tournaments, I’m basically left with the question as to whether or not I use StarCityGames’ services often enough for it to be worth my thirty bucks annually. The answer, sadly, is no. While it is undoubtedly a good deal if you’re interesting in anything besides just Vintage, I’d like to compare it to a subscription to, say, Playboy magazine when you’re a woman. Obviously there’s still a really good articles in there once in a while, and it would probably be picked up by women everywhere (assuming they’re not rabid feminists) if it were free. But while it may be an insane deal for most guys, a girl simply might not get enough out it to warrant a subscription. And while I wouldn’t exactly compare myself to a Playboy-reading woman or Chad Ellis’ articles to pictorials of scantily-clad females (you can only take any given metaphor so far, you know), I think my point is clear. Fact is, I shall not be taking out a subscription, but I shall dearly miss those occasional enlightening articles concerning my format.

The Premise.

After all that, I thought you guys would be ready for a nice short paragraph. So here’s my hypothesis: there’s more people like me out there. Possibly many more. Which got me thinking about…

The Suggestion.

As always, a change in anything Magic-related spurs discussion all over the place. On the TheManaDrain.com where I tend to dwell, a thread was immediately opened upon Pete’s announcement. Discussion has been productive in my humble opinion. At one point, someone stated that ‘if SCG presents an option to pay for just vintage articles, then I would gladly pay a yearly fee.’ Differentiation based on formats. Interesting, but hard to implement. What about cross-format strategy? And the live coverage? Who gets those? But first and foremost: since the current system is already in place, people who took out a subscription might feel wronged somehow.

Matt (formerly The Great, now our resident organ thief) mentioned  that he’d 'prefer to see it paid on a per-article basis’ because that way ‘I don't have to pay for things I don't want.’ Now obviously, there are some problems with that idea. Most importantly, there’s transaction costs (not to mention time) involved in paying anything to anyone. Starting up Paypal every few days to pay amounts in the order of magnitude of tens of cents each time is cumbersome and expensive. But the idea got me thinking. In order to solve the latter problem, I suggested I’d like to be able to create an account so that when I click on a premium article, I buy it for some fixed fee and StarCityGames could keep track of this and charge my card once a year for the lump sum of what I read. This idea of mine, while it has the virtue of being nouvelle, is of course completely and utterly ignorant. I was ready to drop the matter when Jacob Orlove (of Meandeck fame) suggested that ‘it would be much better if you could buy $20 worth of articles in advance, and then just have them deduct $X.XX for each one you read.’

Now that sounds like genius to me right there. A store credit system. One wouldn't even need a fixed amount with which to charge one’s account; just a minimum one (say, ten bucks or so). One could charge it with $100 at a time, should one be so inclined. One could possibly even charge it by trading in cards. Click on a premium article, log in, and have your store credit reduced by a fixed amount each time. As the McDonalds advertising people would say: I’d hit it. There could even be a permanent shopping basket of sorts for articles that tells you how much cash you spent and stores links to the articles you bought for future reference. It seems nothing short of brilliant.  

But the real beauty of Jacob's suggestion is that it seems to me to be relatively easy / cheap to set up and what’s more, it can actually be implemented in addition to the existing subscription structure! Either you become a premium member and gain full access to such goodies as coverage and statistics while having access to all articles at a bargain price, or you simply pay a fixed price for specific articles using store credit. Obviously, it should be set up so that if you were to buy all the premium articles on a per-article basis, you’d have to pay more than the ‘least interesting’ going rate of $4.95 for monthly subscriptions. What amount this works out as per article depends of course on the number of premium articles appearing, among other things. Ted Knutson has stated that there will likely be 40 of these appearing per month. This means the articles would have to be priced as at least $0,13 ($4.95 divided by 40) but possibly in the order of magnitude of 50 cents, in order to ensure  a the subscription remains the most cost-effective option by far if you want to regularly read premium stuff.

It may actually make more money that way, as well as keep people like me happy. People who want in on all the action would still have the opportunity of becoming a full member like they do now, while mildly interested people like me who would have otherwise steered clear of StarCityGames’ premium articles would also be buying stuff. Of course a realistic estimate of how much it would cost to set this up would be necessary, as well as a good idea of how many people would be as enthusiastic about the option as I clearly am. Can’t help with the former, guys. But you can help with the latter. I would ask of you to discuss this suggestion and explore its viability.

[Royal Ass.]

Well written.  I would definatly be the kind of person that would fall into this catagory of "pay per article" users if it were to exist.  As of now I don't plan on buying the subscription for all the reasons you mentioned above.  Not that I don't love SCG of course.

[jcb193]

I think this is by far the best solution, and probably the only one i would consider.  I think it is a matter of human preference.  Nobody wants to pay more than the average person for the same good, and if we don't read every article, we feel like we are.  If we pay per article (even though it could be straggeringly high from a value perspective), we would still feel like we were properly paying in regards to consumption.  As for me, i don't partricularily care for statistics articles, state of the metagame articles, but i love Primers, B/R discusions, and even Tim Aten articles (even though i don't know the first thing about T2).

I would love a per article fee, because i feel like i would be getting value, and at the same time i would be casting my economic vote for the type of article/writer i prefer.

Joshua Brooks


That said, it is kind of silly to have $20 worth of credit tied up all year and gradually use it, and then balk at paying $30 outright.  Anyone who would pay $.50 an an article, probably won't have too much trouble blowing through $20.  But, as i said....human nature /shrug

[Bram]

Exactly. It's not at all inconcievable that someone would actually end up paying more than 30 bucks a year and still not feel ripped, because they were in control of what they were doing the whole time. And if someone regularly buys premium articles, he might well find himself wanting to switch to an actual subscription even though he initially didn't feel for the option.

Again, none of this is meant as criticism. I hope my article clarifies that I care about SCG and what they do. I hoever don't want to be hypocritical about it and thought I'd just tell it like it is from where I'm sitting. It just seems like a solid idea to me.

[ChaosTheory]

This is definitly the best idea I've heard so far.

I'm in the same boat as alot of the SCG users, as I won't pay due to the fact that I only ever read certain formats articles.
Why would I pay for T2 and Extended stuff if I don't care about it?

I would have no problem with paying for the articles I want to read, but I would never pay for stuff I don't want, it just wouldn't be worth the money.

Good idea, and lets hope SCG can find a way to implement this so everybody is happy  

[jcb193]

Not to mention, i am sure that the T2 and Extended players have just as little interest in T1- aside from a cursory glance of a decklist.

[Nova442]

That's a great, easily implementable solution to several problems.  A big hurdle for the premium side is that not everyone plays every format.  Most players of the serious constructed and limited formats did NOT want to be buying premium articles for Casual and T1.  And I'm sure many T1 players could do without the latest T2 metagame discussion.

Not only that but, as you said, it's a great introduction to the premium side and if that person sees the content he would certainly be more likely to sign up on a subscription plan.

Bravo!  I hope this suggestion is added to SCG.

[Nefarias]

At first glance, I agreed that this is a fine solution. After I though about it for a bit, though, I saw more and more flaws.

First of all, your proposed price of $0.50 (which is probably about accurate) would mean sixty premium articles before it would be more beneficial to buy a year's subscription. That's five a month, and just slightly over one a week. Now, I know you stated that it is likely people will go over the $30 price, and I believe it, but quite frankly those people are stupid.

Secondly, compare it to the two most common subscription services: newspapers and magazines. I subscribe to a daily newspaper, and estimate that I read only about 25% of it. I also subscribe to various magazines, and don't read all of them, either. For example, I get a video game magazine that covers PS2, XBox, Gamecube, GBA, DS, PC, and NGage, but I only have four of those. Even if I had them all, certain genres just don't interest me, and I wouldn't read those reviews. I am perfectly happy with both of these subscriptions.

This of course is 100% personal opinion. I definitely read more than $30 worth of SCG stuff, but if you don't, then this "pay per" service is certainly for you. I'm not even saying this is a bad idea, as I'm sure SCG would make plenty of money off it. I'm just saying it isn't for me.

[Godder]

It's not like a normal magazine subscription, though, since you can choose articles, rather than getting the whole issue or getting nothing, unlike paper-based newspapers and magazines.

In any case, it doesn't have to be $0.50 – it could be $0.20 for all that it matters. The aim is to find a price point that light users are happy with, while still being high enough that heavier users have something to gain by purchasing a subscription.

[Komatteru]

The whole pay as you go system could be hard to implement, and I don't think SCG wants to do the whole store credit thing.  I believe it was mentioned in either Knut's or Pete's article that one of the reasons they switched the article submission to $30/$20 cash was because store credit was a pain to keep track of.

If they charged $1 for articles, that might be good.  They might be able to go with $0.50, and that would benefit a lot of people.  In addition to all the paid subscribers, if 50 people read the article at $1 or 100 at $0.50, SCG covers the cost of paying the writer.  Certainly there will be that many people willing to pay that small of a price for one article.  I mean, think of the articles that are written.  Some people like reading primers, and others don't care for that.  Some people want to hear about restriction possibilities, and others don't.  In addition, if there's a really juicy discussion going on on TMD about one article and you just have to see what all the fuss is about, you can do so for the price of a Coke.  So I think that would be the easiest way to implement the "pay-as-you-go" system.  I can see it working kind of like iTunes, as you get flexibility and what you want...like Burger King or something...(ok, I'll stop now).

[Godder]

That works as well, but store credit systems have the advantage of one transaction fee per $10 (say), as opposed to transaction fees on 20 lots of 50c. I don't know if it's viable or not, but it's possible that the savings there would be enough to pay for an automated store credit system to be developed/implemented.

Still, I'm sure it has all been thought about, discussed etc. already by the SCG team, so it's probably just a moot point.

[Nefarias]

It's not like a normal magazine subscription, though, since you can choose articles, rather than getting the whole issue or getting nothing, unlike paper-based newspapers and magazines.

What I'm saying is that the current system is like magazine/newspaper subscriptions, and I'm okay with that.

I know this logic isn't foolproof, as digital media and print media are completely different, but take the video game magazine for example. If I could pay 40% less and get just the PC, GBA, GC, and PS2 info, I wouldn't. The back issues proved to be valuable when I purchased a GBA about 6 months ago, and they will again prove their worth when someday I get that XBox. Likewise, reading about that next awesome DS game could persuade me to get the system.

Take even this week for example. I primarily only read Vintage articles (and exclusively play Vintage), but two different Extended articles piqued my interest. If I had to pay an extra $0.50 for them, I wouldn't have read them. I'm sure many have you have seen an article of a different format that had an interesting enough title or description that you felt like at least checking out the decklist, even if you'd never play it, but wouldn't pay anything for said information. To tie this in to the above point, seeing one of the lists in particular really made me want to play some Extended, which could translate to increased sales for SCG.

Whereas Bram's initial logic of "people like have control over what they pay for" is sound, I'm sort of in a different category. Once the thirty dollars is payed, that's it, I'm done, I can forget about it for a year. I don't want to have control. This system would constantly have me waying whether or not a particular article is worth it, and often I would decide it isn't (even if it was). It's the same thing with pre-paid cell phones for me; I would end up making less calls (even important ones) just knowing that each one is costing me X amount of dollars. But that's just me, and I'm sure this plan is great for a good number of people. I think it's because I'm cheap like that. Anyway, I'm just one person, and SCG's got their money from me, so my issues with this system don't really matter.

[Bram]

First of all, your proposed price of $0.50 (which is probably about accurate) would mean sixty premium articles before it would be more beneficial to buy a year's subscription. That's five a month, and just slightly over one a week. Now, I know you stated that it is likely people will go over the $30 price, and I believe it, but quite frankly those people are stupid.

If they charged $1 for articles, that might be good.

Oh, I'd be fine with a buck, too. The $0.50 was not really based on a calculation or anything. While it's true that you need to buy 60 articles before a year's subscription is more interesting at 50 cts. a piece, it's also true that around 480 premium articles will appear yearly. This means that if you read 1/8 (or 12,5%) of the articles (or 1 every four days) or less, you'd be 'better of' buying them separately. At $1.00, the mark would be at 1 article per eight days (or 1/16 or 6,25%).

Obviously, upping the price makes the subsciptions relatively more interesting, which should be the point. However it will also 'cost' them potential buyers. Say they make the articles cost 30 bucks a piece, for example. That's way you'd be a retard to buy it. It's a supply and demand thing and you can really only set a well-thought-through price if you know something about the demand side. I thinkf this threqad indicates that there at least IS a demand side, though.

A price above $1.00 per article would be useless, I think. It's like a psychological barrier one shouldn't cross. The more I think of it, I think it really should be somewhere between 50 cents and a buck.

I believe it was mentioned in either Knut's or Pete's article that one of the reasons they switched the article submission to $30/$20 cash was because store credit was a pain to keep track of.

Yes, but you could easily fully automate this. I honestly don't see any problem with it.

[jpmeyer]

SCG is making a concious effort now to heavily increase the output of premium articles (for instance, Smmenen plans on going from an article every month to an article every week).  Therefore, for all the people saying that "I'd pay $1 for an article," unless you're really just talking about the principle of having a choice or whatever in how you pay, unless you make the amount per article really cheap (since as it is, if you read only one article a week, that would be like paying 55 cents per article) you honestly would probably be better off just buying the yearly membership if you still wanted to read the articles.

[Godder]

It's not like a normal magazine subscription, though, since you can choose articles, rather than getting the whole issue or getting nothing, unlike paper-based newspapers and magazines.

What I'm saying is that the current system is like magazine/newspaper subscriptions, and I'm okay with that.

I know this logic isn't foolproof, as digital media and print media are completely different, but take the video game magazine for example. If I could pay 40% less and get just the PC, GBA, GC, and PS2 info, I wouldn't. The back issues proved to be valuable when I purchased a GBA about 6 months ago, and they will again prove their worth when someday I get that XBox. Likewise, reading about that next awesome DS game could persuade me to get the system.

SCG is making their premium archives freely available after 6 months, so that doesn't really apply here either.

In any case, for most people, a subscription is the way to go, especially if they're increasing the premium output significantly. For some people, however, even at $1 an article, they'd be better off paying for articles separately, simply because they may only read an article a fortnight (or less), or even only want to read a specific article occasionally, as Bram mentioned above. Selling individual articles wouldn't be significantly more difficult than selling singles, realistically (even if it's just a .pdf or some such).

The exact price would be determined by how desirable it is to sell subscriptions, as opposed to articles, but if it's $1, say, that's getting close to a monthly subscription, so maybe that would tempt people into trying it out for a month. Perhaps it might need to be more ($2?) to make it only an occasional purchase, or subscription is better.

I'd personally be better off subscribing, when I get around to it, since I enjoy other formats as well, but more choice means more money, in my opinion, so it's worth it simply from that point of view.[/quote]

[Bram]

(...)you honestly would probably be better off just buying the yearly membership if you still wanted to read the articles.

Yes, but that's only true if there actually does end up being one Vintage article a week. Also, I don't plan on inanely c/p'ing every Vintage article I see on there...some of the stuff that appears just holds no interest for me (honestly, much as I think of Smmenen, I doubt he (or anyone for that matter) can wrtie a quality Vintage piece every friggin' week...I mean, there is such a thing as school) and I actually might want to read a different, non-Vintage article every once in a while. I just want control over what I do; I want to pay for stuff I want and I'm willing to bleed for it

[jpmeyer]

SCG actually would like to put up a Type 1 article a day on Premium.  I'm not actually sure how they'd do that unless they brought in more writers, but yeah they are attempting to do it.

[Bram]

I find that incredibly hard to believe. Knut suggested in his article they would try for 40 premium articles a month, which would be 2 per (week)day. I highly doubt they would (or even should...) devote half their premium content to Vintage. I mean, c'mon...

[Jacob Orlove]

I know knut wants one T1 piece per day, but I assumed most would not be premium.

[jpmeyer]

I find that incredibly hard to believe. Knut suggested in his article they would try for 40 premium articles a month, which would be 2 per (week)day. I highly doubt they would (or even should...) devote half their premium content to Vintage. I mean, c'mon...

They said two originally, but they have been getting wicked flooded with articles and may in all likelihood push it up to 3.  They will also push it up to three whenever they get an exceptional article from a non-feature writer.

[Bram]

I'd better go write some brilliant article then. It'll be so funny to have soemthing published and then not being able to read it :-)