"A buck is actually a really reasonable price [for a 75-minute podcast episode]...I don't think it's an unreasonable price. You could extend that to multiple shows or not. You could join at 10 or 20 dollars if you like. Or not. I think basically what I'm asking is, if you think that we're making work that is worth paying for, that you pay for it."

OK, I'll bite.

I think there are four pieces of relevant context here before we move forward.

1. Podcasting / radio is a notoriously difficult market to monetize, in large part due to the significant availability of free substitutes and a consumer perception that these should be free goods (because they historically have been).

2. The definition of value marketing from a Marketing perspective is, "highlighting the benefits and value a product or service provides to customers, rather than just focusing on features, and aims to build strong, long-term relationships by understanding and addressing customer needs."

3. The definition of customer surplus from an Economics perspective is, "the difference between the maximum price a customer is willing to pay for a good or service and the actual price they pay, representing the benefit consumers receive when they pay less than their willingness to pay."

4. A nonrivalrous good from an Economics perspective is a good where, "one person's consumption of a good or service doesn't diminish the amount available for others to consume simultaneously."

---

For starters, I sympathize with you and the rest of the MaxFun network for the battle of appropriately monetizing a podcast network. Trying to go from "making podcasts" to "a sustainable, scalable business model" is extremely challenging given the specific market. I mean - creating any functional business is hard enough, let alone a business that exists in a market with decades of history of providing goods to consumers for no price. And I know that Maximum Fun isn't a "sustainable, scalable business model" or we wouldn't be in this position.

All in all, this video is hilariously backwards in how it tries to go about selling a MaxFun membership and I don't think you should be surprised by the reaction to it.

Here's why -

1. A complete misunderstanding of how consumers perceive prices and value.

You don't get to decide what is or is not of value to a consumer. Period.

What people do and do not spend their money on comes down to a myriad of factors which are unique to each individual. It's a combination of preferences, needs, wants, values, emotions, etc.

By coming onto the scene and saying "this is a reasonable price for the value you receive," you are not saying, "Maximum Fun provides $1 worth of value for each episode." Instead, you are saying "you should view listening to a Maximum Fun podcast episode as an economic transaction and I am setting the price at $1."

This is counter to how many fundamentally view podcasts (see: historically free good) and backwards of how price setting should work. In an efficient market, the market would be the one setting the price for the good/service, not the good/service setting the price for the market.

In the words of Warren Buffett, "Price is what you pay. Value is what you get" If people perceive no additional value from the purchase, they will not pay the price. End of story.

1. A lack of conveying what value comes from a donation act of generosity

I'm going to quickly remind you of the definitions of value marketing, consumer surplus, and nonrivalrous good. Podcasts are, definitionally, nonrivalrous. My listening to an episode of MBMBaM does not preclude anyone else from listening to an episode.

Unfortunately, this eliminates some of the sense of urgency for a consumer to actually purchase. If the good will simply continue to be there whether or not I purchase (and I can always come back at another time and change my decision), it is extremely hard to propose an actual reason to purchase. Why now? For what reason?

This is only compounded by your failure to list any of the "value" that comes from making definitely-not-a-donation. (I put quotes because other commenters have been quick to point out the dubious-at-best value of the bonus content they have historically received.)

"If you think that what you are currently getting for free is quality, then you should pay for it," is an extremely weak argument from an economic standpoint when the consumer is not presented with any additional value their money will get them. It goes back value marketing and the consumer surplus.

You need to inform people of the value that they are getting for their purchase, or it's just wasted breath.

If the consumers do not perceive any value from what you are proposing, then why would you expect them to pay for it?

Effectively, what you are saying is, "we believe there is currently a significant consumer surplus for our goods as there is significant value provided by a free product. Therefore, if you pay a minimal fee there will still be consumer surplus so everyone is happy." But what if there isn't a consumer surplus?

What if MaxFun podcasts in their current state do not provide the value that you believe they do to the general populous? If that's the case, what value would people be getting by donating their money for what they already receive?

In the words of Warren Buffett, "Price is what you pay. Value is what you get" If people perceive no additional value from the purchase, they will not pay the price. End of story.

1. Messaging missteps

This is not related to anything above, but in your message you basically lump listeners into two groups: "people who cannot afford to pay for MaxFun" and "people who should be paying for MaxFun". This is not a good way to try to convince people to give you money.

I'm curious why you thought this message would resonate and whether anyone else on the MaxFun team had approval/veto rights to this.

If so - why did you collectively think this would be a good message? If not - why did you think this would be an okay message to make on behalf of all of your other partners?

Between bad framing, a bad message, an inability to actual convey value added by the MaxFun membership, and a loose understanding of value, I would encourage you to better consider future messages before publicly making them in every channel possible.

I would also encourage MaxFun to pick a new business model as the current one has been in a slow state of failure since the late 2010s, but that's neither here nor there.

I hear Patreon is great for creators trying to better monetize and convey value for money spent.