Only $9.95 a month.
Too expensive. Even if you like her.
Don't you think?
ADDED: She's a propagandist. What's the point of making people pay for propaganda? One answer might be: So your consumers don't perceive it is propaganda. Another might be: Because you're a failed propagandist, in a fading, failing phase, which you're trying to monetize.
२८ जुलै, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
10¢ is too expensive.
What was the old P.T.Barnum adage. It applies here. I like the forth rightness of the former Governor but I'm not sending her $10 a month... I'd sooner it to you Althouse with maybe a $2 cut to Meade.
I agree, way too expensive, even if you like her. I read Althouse, along with several other sites, daily, and would not pay that for any of them that I can think of. I haven't even been able to bring myself to pay for Netflix or HuluPlus. So, yes, too much IMO.
That said, with all of the free content out there, I really can't see paying any amount for much anything (other than cable, which I do pay a lot for - not sure why, maybe because I just always have and would miss it if I didn't?). I'm really not clear on how monetizing web information is going to work in the long run. Maybe it will seem more normal to the younger generation that grew up seeped in online content?
Attempts to monetize web content remind me of the complaints about NFL cheerleaders being underpaid. Are they working hard and providing a service that people enjoy? Sure. But, if they refuse to work for the money offered, are there 100 other people, just as talented, who would be happy to take their place for the same pay? Absolutely. Even if you provide really good work, it's just not a winning formula.
When there's so much out there for free, why would I pay?
Certainly a bargain, compared to the cost of a speech by either Hillary or Chelsea.
Why doesn't she have the balls to run for the Senate?
Or is she making too much money on the current circuit to change?
She wants to charge more than Netflix or Amazon Prime? Silly.
Why would I buy the moose when I can get the milk for free?
No one can say she didn't cash in at every opportunity. Which is fine, if people are willing to pay you for it then fill their needs. But the very idea that Palin is anything more than a huckster is laughable.
People go in debt for tens of thousands of dollars to be propagandized, its called college.
But yeah, ten bucks a month seems somewhat high when it provides no credentialing or the opportunity to be accused of being a rapist.
If she would do it in the buff I'd buy.
It's too expensive for me. So is Glenn Beck's Blaze subscription, which was doing okay last I heard. It will depend on the content. If she takes her subscription money and funds original content that people want and can't get elsewhere, who knows? Even Althouse might consider it necessary. I'd say there is little evidence she has "failed" as far as propagandists go. Karl Rove seems like a far bigger failure when you measure results against money spent.
Her best bet is leftists being cruel toward her inspiring a defense instinct among her fans.
Worked on me.
If she joined PJTV, I'd finally pony up for a PJTV subscription fee.
Ever heard of free enterprise? Not in the Cathedral.
Several thoughts:
1) I don’t pay for other people to share their opinions with me on politics and current events other than the time it takes to read and occasionally engage with them.
2) I have no interest in the opinions of Sarah Palin on any topic.
3) There may be some people who – doubtlessly acting out of a misplaced sense of loyalty or protection to someone who was unfairly attacked by the MSM – feel compelled to rally around her but the further removed in time we are from her failed Vice Presidential candidacy and the more she cashes in on it, the fewer in number these people will be.
"You're a failed propagandist, in a fading, failing phase, which you're trying to monetize."
Which is why she's a failed propagandist:
Anyone with a brain would've done it when the iron was hot,...
The year fee is $100, the same as Amazon Prime- with two extra months free for a few days. Why is there am assumption she's distributing political opinion? Her two TV shows are not about politics, her last book wasn't either. She's always had a broad interest in many subjects, it's just political junkies who confine it to politics.
It really depends on what she offers.
If it's her yapping away all day, I don't think I'd watch for free, even though I love the woman.
But if she starts to offer a lot more content, like the Blaze does, then it might be worth it.
My guess at the high price point? So she can lower it later and make you think you got a bargain. Not sure if that's a good idea though.
Seems like setting herself up for a very public failure. Not sure if that will affect her true believers.
eric,
"It really depends on what she offers.
If it's her yapping away all day, I don't think I'd watch for free, even though I love the woman."
Stoners love listening to her talk, because they can't tell what's mangling the language more:
It adds to the quality of the high's hilarity:
Maybe she and Oprah can have a joint venture TV channel.
Why pay $10 for what you're routinely subjected to for free?
People go in debt for tens of thousands of dollars to be propagandized, its called college.
Which would you rather have on your resume -- a bachelor's degree, or a note saying "I subscribed to Sarah Palin TV for four years"?
Unless you're applying for a job as couch cushion stress tester, I can't help but feel that the former is the more impressive entry.
$1/yr seems fair priced. Trying to get rich fighting the spiritual war with the left is a bad idea. A war she was winning when she was going broke.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा