I am a Silver subscriber to GW and I find the cost reasonable and the content superb but adding another comparable subscription is too much. Since adding additional subscribers has virtually no marginal cost I think you'd be better off charging half of what you plan on, see what numbers you get and then aggressively raise prices over time as folks determine if the cost/benefit is there. I believe you will end up with a small initial subscriber base which may be harder to grow than if you started with a very large subscriber base, continued to add to it, and raised prices significantly over time as folks decided it was providing real value. Yeah your team has been writing for free for eleven months and eventually you need to get paid for the content. IMO the initial pricing is just too aggressive. But best wishes, you have good content.
May I suggest Tom Luongo's Gold Goats and Guns as a model? He posts free columns (delayed printings of his subscriber posts, generally) and podcasts, offers biweekly columns and podcasts for subscribers, plus a Slack chat board. All of that for $4 per month. For $11 per month, you get a newsletter that includes investment recommendations.
I would consider you guys peers on your insights. Subscribing at $4 per month is a no-brainer for me. $30 per month with you guys? I would need to understand "why" a whole lot better.
The real science behind the economy (energy/physics, fertilizer/chemistry, biology) is more important than ever. I truly hope that you guys can figure something out.
I'm a new subscriber and really appreciate the articles. I'm also fortunate enough to be able to afford your initial pricing for now , but if you want more paying subs, you'd better drop the price. In that way, you'll make more $$ cause you'd have ALOT more subscribers! I'm in for now.
I have very much enjoyed reading your work. I honestly didn't pay any attention to energy before and am grateful to you for expanding my horizons. Alas I am also a SAHP with no disposable income. Once I am earning again I will subscribe. Best of luck to you, dear chickens.
Have enjoyed reading your articles, but pricing on RV vs Grant doesn't - for me - add up; why - sure there is more content produced here, but heavy on the (great) entertainment. Sadly in this capitalistic world the content that can lead to alpha, demands remuneration. Keep up the great work!
Like others, I would've favored $10/month, but I understand that you have to price for costs as well as quality. Will still follow on other forums! Cheers!
Charge what you want. No problems but understanding the proof of work of this young man building his log cabin but flat out labelling Bitcoin a Ponzi when its value is heavily correlated to its proof of work mechanism and near fortnightly difficulty adjustment.
The energy this gentleman put into his log cabin is what gives it value as there's and abundance of trees to use as materials, is the same as the energy the Bitcoin networks uses to provide security and value to the entire network.
I absolutely love your work and have followed it since the first scratchings, but on a retirement pension that was just about adequate in the '90s if we kept working part-time (which we're still doing in our 70s and 80s), we just can't manage it. I'll certainly follow your, um, droppings on Twitter :-) but hope you throw us the occasional outside-the-paywall treat. It's been a blast - I hope you continue to have as much fun as you've had success. We'll miss you!
I also will not continue past May 1. I understand perfectly that you have to be compensated for your work. I only worked for free when I felt it was to save lives that might be endangered otherwise. Your work may save someone's sanity but even your prose is not quite to lifesaving quality yet. Keep up the good work and I may be back some day. I appreciate the insights you have provided. Thanks and best wishes!
Big fan of Doomberg but the price seems a bit steep for the content. I'd gladly subscribe at $10/month, but at $30/month it'd be more expensive than Bloomberg for me. I hope that one day Doomberg will surpass Bloomberg in value, but it's not the case for me today.
Love the articles and analysis. Reading them results in my feeling calm in a world gone mad. Looking forward to the coming year. 👍
I am a Silver subscriber to GW and I find the cost reasonable and the content superb but adding another comparable subscription is too much. Since adding additional subscribers has virtually no marginal cost I think you'd be better off charging half of what you plan on, see what numbers you get and then aggressively raise prices over time as folks determine if the cost/benefit is there. I believe you will end up with a small initial subscriber base which may be harder to grow than if you started with a very large subscriber base, continued to add to it, and raised prices significantly over time as folks decided it was providing real value. Yeah your team has been writing for free for eleven months and eventually you need to get paid for the content. IMO the initial pricing is just too aggressive. But best wishes, you have good content.
Support from Hong Kong, cheers.
Very much enjoy the product, but $30/mo is just too much. If there is the possibility of a lower tier, will definitely reconsider.
May I suggest Tom Luongo's Gold Goats and Guns as a model? He posts free columns (delayed printings of his subscriber posts, generally) and podcasts, offers biweekly columns and podcasts for subscribers, plus a Slack chat board. All of that for $4 per month. For $11 per month, you get a newsletter that includes investment recommendations.
I would consider you guys peers on your insights. Subscribing at $4 per month is a no-brainer for me. $30 per month with you guys? I would need to understand "why" a whole lot better.
The real science behind the economy (energy/physics, fertilizer/chemistry, biology) is more important than ever. I truly hope that you guys can figure something out.
I'm a new subscriber and really appreciate the articles. I'm also fortunate enough to be able to afford your initial pricing for now , but if you want more paying subs, you'd better drop the price. In that way, you'll make more $$ cause you'd have ALOT more subscribers! I'm in for now.
I have very much enjoyed reading your work. I honestly didn't pay any attention to energy before and am grateful to you for expanding my horizons. Alas I am also a SAHP with no disposable income. Once I am earning again I will subscribe. Best of luck to you, dear chickens.
Have enjoyed reading your articles, but pricing on RV vs Grant doesn't - for me - add up; why - sure there is more content produced here, but heavy on the (great) entertainment. Sadly in this capitalistic world the content that can lead to alpha, demands remuneration. Keep up the great work!
Like others, I would've favored $10/month, but I understand that you have to price for costs as well as quality. Will still follow on other forums! Cheers!
I love your work but I also cannot pay $300 a year. I would go for $10/month. If you change your pricing please let me now.
Charge what you want. No problems but understanding the proof of work of this young man building his log cabin but flat out labelling Bitcoin a Ponzi when its value is heavily correlated to its proof of work mechanism and near fortnightly difficulty adjustment.
The energy this gentleman put into his log cabin is what gives it value as there's and abundance of trees to use as materials, is the same as the energy the Bitcoin networks uses to provide security and value to the entire network.
Anyway all the best little chicken.
I would go for $10/month. If you change pricing, let me know.
I absolutely love your work and have followed it since the first scratchings, but on a retirement pension that was just about adequate in the '90s if we kept working part-time (which we're still doing in our 70s and 80s), we just can't manage it. I'll certainly follow your, um, droppings on Twitter :-) but hope you throw us the occasional outside-the-paywall treat. It's been a blast - I hope you continue to have as much fun as you've had success. We'll miss you!
Shame - I would have paid $100 per annum but this is too rich
I also will not continue past May 1. I understand perfectly that you have to be compensated for your work. I only worked for free when I felt it was to save lives that might be endangered otherwise. Your work may save someone's sanity but even your prose is not quite to lifesaving quality yet. Keep up the good work and I may be back some day. I appreciate the insights you have provided. Thanks and best wishes!
Big fan of Doomberg but the price seems a bit steep for the content. I'd gladly subscribe at $10/month, but at $30/month it'd be more expensive than Bloomberg for me. I hope that one day Doomberg will surpass Bloomberg in value, but it's not the case for me today.