Ron Paul Channel Monthly Fee...

[libertariantexas]

lol even my friends who barely make any money don't feel like $10 is a lot of money, but whatever.

With that attitude, your friends must be broke, and probably always will be, even when their incomes go up.

It's not about whether someone can come up with $10/month, it's about whether this is the best way to spend that $120/year.

Even for a millionaire, money is limited. He has to decide whether that $10 should go to the Ron Paul channel, a charitable donation to the local animal shelter/food pantry, or be invested or whatever.

For many of people, putting that money toward the Ron Paul channel may not be seen as the best use of that $120/year (actually, more than $120/year when opportunity cost is considered).

It's got nothing to do with being "cheap"- it's about making sound, rational financial decisions about using money in the best way. The reason most millionaires are millionaires is because they are frugal, they don't fritter money foolishly away with statements like "hey, it's only $10/month, that's nothing (that's how financially irresponsible people think)."

Anyway, we'll all make our own decisions, but for me, this isn't the best use of my money.

 

[libertariantexas]

We don't know what the money goes to, maybe it goes to Campaign for Liberty or something like that. Better him than Obama. I guess a lot of Ron Paul "fans" finally show their true colors. It's $10, it's so insignificant. And it's funny how people bitch about freeloading all the time and then expect to get this for free.

If the choice was "You MUST give $10 to either Ron Paul or Obama," we'd all choose Ron Paul.

But that isn't the choice. We have to choose between the Ron Paul subscription or any of millions of other things we can spend the money on. And for me, there are a lot of better choices than sending $10/month to a septuagenarian multi-millionaire retired politician for a couple of videos per month. That doesn't mean I don't like or respect Ron Paul, I just don't see it as a worthwhile use of my money.

It's not even a good use of the money to promote the movement. If you have $120/year just burning a hole in your pocket, there are a lot of better ways to spend it- support active libertarian politicians (like Justin Amash or Rand Paul) or freedom related organizations (CFL, Libertarian Party, NRA, whatever).

If they go to an advertiser supported model, I'll check it out, but I don't see much bang for my buck in paying a subscription for this.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Here's what Ludwig von Mises had to say about it: Human Action, VII. ACTION WITHIN THE WORLD, 1. The Law of Marginal Utility.

 

[angelatc]

Here's what Ludwig von Mises had to say about it: Human Action, VII. ACTION WITHIN THE WORD, 1. The Law of Marginal Utility.

LOL - that was hard to read! I got this:

If a man wants to remove a pathological condition by taking a definite quantity of a remedy, the intake of a multiple will not bring about a better effect. The surplus will have either no effect other than the appropriate dose, the optimum, or it will have detrimental effects.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

If the choice was "You MUST give $10 to either Ron Paul or Obama," we'd all choose Ron Paul.

But that isn't the choice. We have to choose between the Ron Paul subscription or any of millions of other things we can spend the money on. And for me, there are a lot of better choices than sending $10/month to a septuagenarian multi-millionaire retired politician for a couple of videos per month. That doesn't mean I don't like or respect Ron Paul, I just don't see it as a worthwhile use of my money.

It's not even a good use of the money to promote the movement. If you have $120/year just burning a hole in your pocket, there are a lot of better ways to spend it- support active libertarian politicians (like Justin Amash or Rand Paul) or freedom related organizations (CFL, Libertarian Party, NRA, whatever).

If they go to an advertiser supported model, I'll check it out, but I don't see much bang for my buck in paying a subscription for this.

I was gonna stay out of this but I have to chime in in support of ^this sentiment. It isn't about the small monthly fee but in reality I don't see this channel expanding outside of the diehards that read/watch everything he writes, says or does. The podcast isn't going anywhere either especially because these enterprises have his name as the focal point on them. Same thing goes for RPI, they should've just kept the Institute for Peace and Prosperity. If you're trying to educate those that don't understand liberty yet, there's likely those that don't give a flip in general and many many that wouldn't be interested specifically because his name is the product. Like he always says, it should be about the message but now he's making a little bit more about the name (man). It's basically an extended version of Texas Straight Talk (w/ visuals and interviews) that I never paid any attention to. Nothing personal, it's just boring business.

 

[liberty2897]

Didn't see this thread before, so posted my question in the wrong place. Is there a possibility of using whatever campaign funds are available and using them to fund this channel for some time? My next question would be: How many of subscribers would it take to make this channel free to all?

 

[angelatc]

I was gonna stay out of this but I have to chime in in support of ^this sentiment. It isn't about the small monthly fee but in reality I don't see this channel expanding outside of the diehards that read/watch everything he writes, says or does..

I think that's what some people found discouraging.

But - and I'll get flamed for this - maybe this his his way of forcing some of us to move on.

 

[Carson]

Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
I was gonna stay out of this but I have to chime in in support of ^this sentiment. It isn't about the small monthly fee but in reality I don't see this channel expanding outside of the diehards that read/watch everything he writes, says or does..

But what if what it takes to get it off the ground is $10.00 a month. In the first few months the content could draw enough attention that the hard core MAIN STREAM MEDIA types just have to run with some of it. That could start bringing in the big bucks.

 

[Carson]

The reoccurring fee held me off.

I thought maybe if I did a month, then I saw the reoccurring thing but it said I could cancel at anytime.

Then I thought I join and cancel right away. Be in to the channel for $10.00. Then I thought if I canceled right away I'd be out as soon as I was in and unable to access content.


Whoa to the tight times.

 

[bolil]

He should, I think, give members of this board free access. If not me, some of the more productive ones. The 10$ fee could be a revenue raising endeavor with an ancillary benefit: vetting certain trolls.

Of course the only trolls to worry about check in with a .gov and its not like they would hesitate to spend your money.

Having said that, 10$ a month is less than the 200$ I spend on sucking cancer into my lungs. If I drop that habit I am in.

 

[FreedomRings]

Didn't see this thread before, so posted my question in the wrong place. Is there a possibility of using whatever campaign funds are available and using them to fund this channel for some time?

I'm sure they could find a way if they wanted to. But why would they want to? Are you implying that Ron Paul has a moral and/or legal obligation to invest unused campaign funds into projects that advance the cause of liberty?

 

[liberty2897]

I'm sure they could find a way if they wanted to. But why would they want to? Are you implying that Ron Paul has a moral and/or legal obligation to invest unused campaign funds into projects that advance the cause of liberty?

No, I'm not implying that Ron has an obligation to make it free. Just asking a couple of questions. I can afford the subscription for myself right now, but I would like others to be able to view it that don't have the money. I asked about the remaining campaign funds, because I don't even know if it would be legal to use those funds that way? I realize a production like this costs a lot of money. I've already seen take down notices on youtube due to copyright infringement for the show. Would also like to know if it is within the realm of possibility to make this viewable by all if there were enough subscribers to cover the costs? If this is purely a maximize-profits venture with no free access, then I guess that is what it is.

 

[fr33]

Just an FYI since I haven't seen it acknowledged here: The Ron Paul Channel no longer exists. The membership model failed like many of us said it would.


http://ronpaulchannel.com/ forwards to http://www.voicesofliberty.com/

They offer some premium subscription that I'm sure isn't worth the cost but now most content is available for free. Should have been that way from the start.

 

[brandon]

Really sad he ever went down that route. I was just thinking the other day that I haven't watched a Ron Paul video in probably over a year because of the stupid subscription model. It's like he tried to take the monetization model from his 90's news letters and apply it to 2014 internet videos. Honestly this combined with his anti science home school curriculum made me lose a lot of interest in him after the 2012 race. Seems he just tried to monetize his persona in every wrong way possible.

And isn't he pretty well off? He's in his late 70s and retired with a net worth of like 5+ million. All of his kids are grown and successful. Why does he even care about money anymore? I thought he retired from congress to protect his legacy......

 

[Bryan]

I suspect this is mostly others giving him bad advice. That said, he has been in a unique position and it would be hard to know what's a good move and what's just not going to work.

Really sad he ever went down that route. I was just thinking the other day that I haven't watched a Ron Paul video in probably over a year because of the stupid subscription model. It's like he tried to take the monetization model from his 90's news letters and apply it to 2014 internet videos. Honestly this combined with his anti science home school curriculum made me lose a lot of interest in him after the 2012 race. Seems he just tried to monetize his persona in every wrong way possible.

And isn't he pretty well off? He's in his late 70s and retired with a net worth of like 5+ million. All of his kids are grown and successful. Why does he even care about money anymore? I thought he retired from congress to protect his legacy......

 

[Natural Citizen]

Really sad he ever went down that route..

I'm not so sure it was him that made a decision like that. I think he fell for some slick "technology" speak thrown his way by some folks who wanted to capitalize off his name. Of course, that's only my view. What it did was it kept him out of public view during a critical time in his transition from government. Was unfortunate.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ron enjoys a global audience now and it continues to grow as foreign media look to him on matters of foreign policy and other such things. Which is a different phenomenon that has evolved of late. The channel itself, ironically, is heavily promoted by various platforms during discussion with him.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Just an FYI since I haven't seen it acknowledged here: The Ron Paul Channel no longer exists. The membership model failed like many of us said it would.


http://ronpaulchannel.com/ forwards to http://www.voicesofliberty.com/

They offer some premium subscription that I'm sure isn't worth the cost but now most content is available for free. Should have been that way from the start.

I was still happy to pay for his content and help him get the more comprehensive VOL off the ground