[FM Discuss] berlin pricing

[chris hofmann]

A few more ideas.

FM is probably going to have to try tons of funding models before 
finding a few successful ones that stick.   

Once you figure out your core values, try as many experiments as 
possible that fit inside those core values.

The Berlin model is interesting but I think that one part that is 
missing from the consumer side is good information about what the real 
costs might be.  The consumer can't make a real informed decision about 
what it might take to keep the operation sustainable.  One experiment 
might not be the 'blind 2 euro model', but rather a 'transparency into 
our cost model'

For each manual provide something like the following:

    -here is the link that describes our values, our community of
    passonate contributors, and our beliefs in transparency and
    providing user value. [something like the brand stuff I wrote in the
    last thread],

    -here is the minimum you must pay to get a book (2 euro?  -- I'd say
    more)

    -here is an estimate of what this book might have cost to produce
    given the level of time and effort put in by all contributors
    (optional price)

    -here is the amount that keeps us operating (optional price)

    -here is a suggested amount that allow us to invest in more projects
    and infrastructure (optional price)  [ and a link that talks about
    upcoming projects and infrastructure that you would be helping to fund]


I think if you combined these ideas you get the best of  ideas that 
Derek and Adam wrote about.

Adam -
--Make people feel good about what they are contributing too, 

--Create some buzz  and attention around a new way of thinking about the 
worlds of publishing, pricing, transparency and value.

Derek -
--Know your costs,
--Try to understand the value you are providing
--Run the operation efficiently and effectively,
--Plan for sustainability.


The interesting thing about trying to track these costs and levels of 
value is that they could also be applied to the on-line materials.   You 
could also make it possible for users to feel good about contributing to 
those works by pledging contributions for viewing or downloading.

-chofmann

Derek Holzer wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> I'm on the road right now, so this will have to necessarily be much 
> shorter than your original question.
>
> First of all, let me qualify this all by saying to the list that I am 
> not a daytime-professional who works on Free Software related projects 
> in the free time which an office job income can support. It's not my 
> "hobby". I am a freelance artist who writes and teaches for my living. 
> As I suspect many others here are as well.
>
> So I am curious what your idea of "profit" is. It seems you are quite 
> nervous about charging what these manuals actually are worth in terms 
> of what it takes to produce them, and that this nervousness about 
> money could be ideological rather than practical.
>
> I'm not of the mindset that Free Software means that nobody gets paid. 
> That is a recipe for lazy production and poor content (as well as poor 
> content-producers!). In my mind, non-profit doesn't mean anti-money, 
> whereas anti-money comes very close to meaning completely 
> unsustainable in the long run. So how can this thing stand on it's own 
> two feet without constantly looking for subsidies and other structural 
> handouts?
>
> To me, the idea of "for profit" is about this capitalist idea of using 
> money to make more money rather than using money to make more goods or 
> content. So the idea of paying people for their time is not 
> antithetical to the idea of being "non profit". How many "non profit" 
> organizations do you know where all the employees actually are 
> volunteers?
>
> If I were you (but of course I'm not), I would take a hard look at the 
> costs and the costs of people's time involved in producing and 
> maintaining these manuals and price them accordingly. Pricing them at 
> "fire sale" prices isn't necessary to move the content. People can 
> still browse, print etc for free.
>
> I think a clear indication of what each manual *should* cost would 
> encourage people to take them, and the idea of buying one, seriously. 
> An open donation scheme, on the other hand, might encourage "feel 
> good" spending but without any scale to measure the value of the 
> donation against, and doesn't make nearly as strong a statement in 
> this age of throwaway downloadable content.
>
> By the way, the "Berlin" pricing scale may appear to work for these 
> little cafes, but that is debatable when the staff's time, space 
> rental and food costs all get calculated...and I guarantee that when 
> there is a loss it is on the staff's side first. And try feeling good 
> about it when you've worked all week on a performance and get handed 
> the EUR 20 of the door money that is your share after the GEMA and the 
> other people on the bill all get their shares. I find myself saying 
> the following on a weekly basis these days: "You can die of exposure."
>
> My 2-øre,
> D.
>
> adam hyde wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> following on from the "release early, release often, release
>> everywhere" chat and the interesting posts that followed (esp. thanks
>> to chris for interesting deconstruction of the fm 'brand') -  I 
>> wanted to
>> follow up with a question about the pricing of books
>>
>> At present we have 10 books available.
>> We put a mark-up on our books of 2 euro for each. The theory on sales
>> is :
>> 1. we should sell enough of any one book so that the $ could be used to
>> fund a book sprint on that topic to update the book
>> 2. we should sell all material at as low a price as possible to try and
>> get the content out there
>>
>> However, no one of our books has yet enough $ to fund a sprint. Also, I
>> am not sure about the tone of this policy so I think we need to rethink
>> the strategy a little. Which brings me to the interesting question of
>> 'Berlin Pricing'.
>>
>> In Berlin there are a number of restaurants and bars that offer a very
>> interesting model. I attended one yesterday in Prenzlauerberg where
>> entrance was 1 euro, and then you could drink and eat as much as you
>> want. When you left you paid what you thought was a fair price. A friend
>> and I had 4 small glasses of wine each and paid 20 euro. That is about
>> the normal cost for a small glass of cheap wine in Berlin.
>> When I paid the 20 I felt good (it might have also been the wine ;) I
>> didnt feel like I was paying a bill (I could have walked away without
>> paying anything), I felt I was contributing to something that I
>> personally supported. I was not obliged to pay, but I did and I felt
>> better for it.
>>
>> There are some that would have paid more, and some that would have paid
>> less, and some that would have paid nothing. There are also those that
>> pay a little, and when they come back next time with more money then
>> they are more generous.
>>
>> The interesting thing apart from the feel good factor (which is very
>> interesting) is that the model seems to be working. At least anecdotal
>> evidence shows that the bar is extremely popular with people spilling
>> out onto the street, and also the bar has been popular and has remained
>> in business for 5 years now.
>>
>> Also, 'everyone' knows about the bar because of this pricing model. It
>> seemed to me that there were also a lot of tourists there which
>> suggestions word about the bar has spread wider than the local market.
>>
>> So...I am wondering about our arbitrary 2 euro policy. 2 euro is a
>> number i picked out of the air, but I have been conflicted about it
>> almost since we have been selling books.
>> It occurs to me that a much stronger model might be to sell all our
>> books strictly at cost price (ie. at the same price lulu charges to
>> make them) and offer a model like these Berlin bars. Lulu.com offers
>> the possibility of uploading and selling PDF. So we could, for example,
>> offer pdf certificates through lulu.com for the price of 1, 10 and 100
>> euro.
>>
>> Then when someone buys a book they may also decide to support us with a
>> 10 euro certificate. Or they may not. They might also decide to buy 10 x
>> 100 euro certificates, or they may not.
>> They might also just buy x number of books at cost for their school, or
>> they might buy no books and buy 5 x 10 euro certificates because they
>> like what we do. etc.
>>
>> I think this model has an interesting philosophy at its core :
>> 1. it puts trust in our audience to support us when they can
>> 2. it does not require anyone to spend anything other than the
>> bare minimum on our content unless they really can
>>
>> It seems to me this far better realises our original objective with our
>> books than the 2 euro model.
>>
>> I think that this model is a very good way to build good will in our
>> readership. It is a way to build trust and show that we are about what
>> we say we are about : developing and distributing high quality
>> documentation about how to use free software. That is, we are not about
>> selling books for a profit.
>>
>> Also, by moving the generation of income from profits of book sales to
>> the certificates, we are actually generating income as a result of the
>> good will we can generate in our audience. This seems a more
>> interesting motivation to me - in order to enhance income we have to
>> enhance the size and depth of the readerships good will.
>> Thats not a bad idea and keeps us focused on our core ideology and 
>> removes
>> the focus from non-core activities ie. making a profit from selling
>> books
>>
>> There is another component to the model which is interesting. I think
>> in this model all sales of certificates would necessarily be put into a
>> pool of funds available for funding Book Sprints on any topic. This
>> seems to me to sit better within the idea of a community like FLOSS
>> Manuals (as opposed to individualism created when income from a book
>> gets spent only on a book sprint on that content). It also means that
>> we could put funds towards book sprints on topics that might not
>> otherwise attract funding.
>>
>> Lastly, I think that this model would attract a lot of attention as it's
>> quite unique. Attention is also not such a bad thing, as any attention
>> draws more eyes to the content we develop, and also possibly more
>> participation in developing the content.
>>
>> I'd be interested in any thoughts on this...
>>
>> adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>