Ron Paul Channel Monthly Fee...

[angelatc]

You sound like a liberal when you say "buy me a subscription." lol As long as you don't think you can watch the youtube for free.

Apparently, then, $10 is only "not significant" when it isn't YOUR $10?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Apparently, then, $10 is only "not significant" when it isn't YOUR $10?

lol are you sure you're at the right forum? Uh, yeah I paid for it. The only thing worse than being a freeloader is being a cheap one.

 

[angelatc]

lol are you sure you're at the right forum? Uh, yeah I paid for it. The only thing worse than being a freeloader is being a cheap one.

Maybe you're on the little bus. Nobody is accusing you of not paying. The problem arose when you said that $10 was an insignificant amount for other people to pay. Assigning your values to the expenditures of others is a liberal trait. Like I said,who are you to decide that $10 is an insignificant amount?

If it makes you feel better, I didn't watch either episode, and actually can't remember the last time I watched any Ron Paul video. You can go ahead and tithe, and I'm happy for both of you, but don't you dare decide what amount to a significant expenditure out of other people's wallets.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Maybe you're on the little bus. Nobody is accusing you of not paying. The problem arose when you said that $10 was an insignificant amount for other people to pay. Assigning your values to the expenditures of others is a liberal trait. Like I said,who are you to decide that $10 is an insignificant amount?

If it makes you feel better, I didn't watch either episode, and actually can't remember the last time I watched any Ron Paul video. You can go ahead and tithe, and I'm happy for both of you, but don't you dare decide what amount to a significant expenditure out of other people's wallets.

lol even my friends who barely make any money don't feel like $10 is a lot of money, but whatever. If you don't watch it and have no interest, why bother engaging in the discussion? It would just seem to me to be a huge waste of time, but again that's just my observation.

 

[Zee]

Many good points in this thread. It would be nice to share some of his segments with non subscribers, but at least this project isn't at the mercy of advertisers. Maybe in the future it can be funded without a subscription.

Idea - Maybe Ron should edit down the more significant segments and make those available to link or share with others. At least some ad revenue can be gained from a video hosting site while spreading informative news. He can probably hire a part time collage student pretty cheap to take care of that.

Even if it was free to watch, the "choir" would make up most of the regular viewers. The overhead and profit is irrelevant, why even question that?
$10 a month is cheaper than a Sunday only subscription to the New York Times, or a monthly subscription to your local newspaper,,, which would you guys prefer to support?

 

[mport1]

It looks like RPC has used "intellectual property" to take down the YouTube videos of the show. Disgusting to see Ron Paul use this kind of violence against a peaceful person.

They really need to change their revenue model. Otherwise it is likely to flop, and for certain the show will NEVER reach those who need to see it. Nobody new to the ideas of liberty would ever spend $10/month to subscribe.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422956-Ron-Paul-Stop-and-Frisk

Seeing as though Ron made several minutes' worth of statements against Stop and Frisk, having some sort of freemium model (or at least putting 5 or 10 minute snippets of relevant information about current events on YouTube) would be a wonderful opportunity to get the message out.

 

[Matt Collins]

It looks like RPC has used "intellectual property" to take down the YouTube videos of the show. Disgusting to see Ron Paul use this kind of violence against a peaceful person.

According to how he described the project, it's possible he doesn't even own the content, SPN, the company who produces it might. If that's the case it's not him, it's them.


But even if it isn't the case and he owns it, the reality is that users on YouTube agree to the terms of service when they sign up, which means no uploading stuff that is copyrighted by someone else.

They really need to change their revenue model. Otherwise it is likely to flop

Really? Have you run the numbers on this? He has 2 million supporters across the county. If only 5,000 of them sign up, that's $50k/month of revenue.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Really? Have you run the numbers on this? He has 2 million supporters across the county. If only 5,000 of them sign up, that's $50k/month of revenue.

$50k in revenue, not necessarily $50k in profit. If the profit/loss ratio is poor, the project fails. Got numbers on the channel's costs (the negative side of the balance sheet)?

 

[Matt Collins]

$50k in revenue, not necessarily $50k in profit. If the profit/loss ratio is poor, the project fails. Got numbers on the channel's costs (the negative side of the balance sheet)?

I seriously doubt it's $50k/month.

 

[RickyJ]

A bigger concern to me is this will eliminate any possibility of drawing in non-supporters. The message of truth and liberty is something that needs to be spread to new listeners, not just preaching to the choir of already open eyed fans.

Yes, it is shame Ron has people just trying to make a buck off of him like this. The message needs to go out far and wide, this is not the way to do it. Ad based revenue should more than cover the cost of operations, there is no need to restrict the message like this.

 

[RickyJ]

Except for that whole raising millions of dollars online while everyone else thought it was a joke thing.

Actually it was the grassroots in 2007 that got that ball rolling, otherwise Ron Paul 2008 would have never got off the ground.

 

[RickyJ]

Beck also brought in tons of ads and got his channel on cable, Ron is not going to.

Btw, I get The Blaze for free since Glenn likes me.

Isn't that equivalent to getting an STD for free?

 

[angelatc]

$50k in revenue, not necessarily $50k in profit. If the profit/loss ratio is poor, the project fails. Got numbers on the channel's costs (the negative side of the balance sheet)?

Yeah, from an accounting side 50k isn't even a single salary.

 

[angelatc]

Many good points in this thread. It would be nice to share some of his segments with non subscribers, but at least this project isn't at the mercy of advertisers. Maybe in the future it can be funded without a subscription.

Idea - Maybe Ron should edit down the more significant segments and make those available to link or share with others. At least some ad revenue can be gained from a video hosting site while spreading informative news. He can probably hire a part time collage student pretty cheap to take care of that.

Even if it was free to watch, the "choir" would make up most of the regular viewers. The overhead and profit is irrelevant, why even question that?
$10 a month is cheaper than a Sunday only subscription to the New York Times, or a monthly subscription to your local newspaper,,, which would you guys prefer to support?

I'm not in this to pay Ron Paul's bills. IWhen I buy a newspaper, I things I haven't read before.

 

[RickyJ]

Yall do remember that Ron isn't getting a Congressional pension, right?

That means he has to do something to make money.

Ron Paul is a retired multi-millionaire, he doesn't have to work one day for the rest of his life if so chooses to. Yes he and his staff should be compensated for doing these videos, but if the main goal is to spread the message then paying for operations with ads would be far superior than charging a monthly fee.

 

[angelatc]

lol even my friends who barely make any money don't feel like $10 is a lot of money, but whatever. If you don't watch it and have no interest, why bother engaging in the discussion?

It would just seem to me to be a huge waste of time, but again that's just my observation.

Priceless! Now you're not only deciding how I should value my money, but also my time? Anything else you feel qualified to run in my life?


So you must be rich. That would explain the snobbish condescension. How nice for you. But that still doesn't give you the right to decide that $10 is not a significant amount. Again, if it isn't significant, I'm sure you won't mind buying me a subscription.

And also let's not forget you said that if we loved Ron Paul, we'd give him our money. Do you give money to all the people that you love? I love my Mom, but she doesn't charge me $10 to listen to her. My kids love me but I'm pretty sure they're not going to pay to hear my lectures. I'd be rich if they would.

 

[angelatc]

Ron Paul is a retired multi-millionaire, he doesn't have to work one day for the rest of his life if so chooses to. Yes he and his staff should be compensated for doing these videos, but if the main goal is to spread the message then paying for operations with ads would be far superior than charging a monthly fee.

Actually it's a free market. Don't pay him if you don't see the value. But we don't have any right to insist he adopt the business model that we prefer.

 

[angelatc]

It looks like RPC has used "intellectual property" to take down the YouTube videos of the show. Disgusting to see Ron Paul use this kind of violence against a peaceful person.

They really need to change their revenue model. Otherwise it is likely to flop, and for certain the show will NEVER reach those who need to see it. Nobody new to the ideas of liberty would ever spend $10/month to subscribe.

He spent quite a few years preaching only to is choir, via the newsletters. He occasionally had an op-ed in the newspaper, but the bulk of is communications went out to people who subscribed to is mailings. He made millions off of it.

I'm more the AmConMag kind of person, myself.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes, it is shame Ron has people just trying to make a buck off of him like this.

Did you ever consider that Ron himself could be making good money off this too, as he should be?