Would you pay for Facebook?

[Nicola More]

The Guardian today reports on the Sun Valley conference in Idaho, where the big guns in digital media network, discuss industry issues, massage one another's egos and mumble about the evils of the press (presumably).

Twitter is said to be among the hot topics of the day and much debate circled around one key question:

Will users ever be willing to pay for sites like YouTube, Twitter & Facebook?

John Malone of Liberty Media thinks so, believing when we're hooked we're hooked. Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is sceptical about the money-making prospects of these sites and dismissed rumours he's planning to buy Twitter.

Perhaps he's short of cash... anyone spare some change?

Full article here

[Andy Hayes]

Fascinating discussion.

On one hand I think fees would provide a barrier to entry for all these spammers and promotion con artists. However, some would pay and spam anyway.

Others who have a genuine use for the tool and use it "in the spirit" would leave, meaning your network would be fairly disconnected.

It all comes down to the perceived value of the fees. LinkedIn figured out a model from the early days and seems to be doing just fine (note I didn't say perfect, far from it :P). So if Twitter & Facebook can figure out products/services that people will actually see value in, while keeping their base service free, I think they'll be in good shape.

Having said that, I'm not in charge, and their actions to date certainly haven't inspired confidence. Remains to be seen.

[Joe Tree]

Dave - the money to keep the lights switched on has to come from somewhere. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube all rely on their investors. We may all be here for professional reasons and enjoying a free service, but there wouldn't be a 38minutes if someone (C4) wasn't paying Ning's fees and putting the effort in to nurture and manage it. There's no such thing as a free website!

[Joe Tree]

For these three sites, charging users even a very small amount to pay for what they've been getting for free would be counter productive. Sure, a percentage will cough up, but these platforms – and their perceived value – rely on volume. Take that away and the service shrinks, leaving a vacuum for the next free service (Napster went commercial so the kids moved to Limewire... Limewire went commercial so the kids moved to The Pirate Bay... The Pirate Bay have started going commercial so...)

Twitter generates no revenue and we know very little about the profitability of Facebook, but we do know the individuals involved in creating these platforms have accrued great personal wealth through the value of their shareholdings. I think that disparity, which is something fairly unique to online business, often clouds these discussions. Didn't we learn the first time around that you can only trade on future share value for so long?

If sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube want to draw income from their users and become profitable businesses, they're going to have to develop entirely new things which people see enough value in to pay for. The trouble is, they've had to let the cat out of the bag to dominate the market in such a short space of time.

If they do manage to come up with valuable add-ons, they'll set themselves up for comparison with other sites which have much better, more established paid membership models. If I had to pay to upload videos to the web, I'd rather give Vimeo my money than YouTube.

These sites rely on being free to maintain their dominant position and to a great extent, position themselves as sort of 'public services'. Impose a charge and all that changes.

[Dave Black]

Are some people honestly still at the stage of thinking that there's no revenue unless it's paid for directly, in cash, at the point of receipt? Be honest; most of us are here on 38minutes for professional reasons - that's money - but are we demanding that our consumers - that's each other - pay for our services here and now? Or are we investing time and effort in the hope of returns later on?

[Daniel Livingstone]

Facebook could perhaps have tried to charge money for the 'vanity' urls it offered recently. but charging for basic service? See the people leave in droves...

[Nicola More]

Good point, but then the difference is we expect it to make money, but in most cases not by charging the consumer directly

[Darcie]

I'm sceptical of any paid membership site online - and would only consider it if it was purely benificial to myself (for ex a Flickr Pro account). I feel that any site asking for money up front will push people away and even if it has the potential of being bigger & better than its rivals, few will take the plunge.

Classmates.com for example offers basic stuff for free and then you have to pay to do and see more. I ingnored all the newsletters and then cancelled my account. What's the point of being on it if the free stuff isn't worth even viewing the site.

Although I have to say, that we as digital media peoples understand the necessitiy for something to make money so we can keep creating amazing products/apps/sites etc, however we are, at the same time, unwilling to pay for them.

[Nicola More]

Must admit I too would be highly surprised if people were willing to pay - and if you were it would probably be for only one and not for a whole clutch of subscription charges that really add up.

Facebook Suicide sounds hilarious - maybe it could be the next 'Bunny Suicides' and generate a cult following!

[Stuart Cosgrove]

Unlikley. Its tipped into being a bit of a nuisnace for me so like many others plan to do facebook suicide soon. The more that Facebook and Twitter come under revenue generating pressure from investors the more they chase away their original advocates, or tip the balance too far towards 'promotional' activity.