There is nothing in the ideas mentioned above that a business cannot implement without blockchain. Furthermore, the idea of the secondary market for software use is not commercially sound. A consumer is unwise to purchase a subscription they don’t intend to use. They need to look at total length of use and factor in periods when they don’t use it. Passing on to others just cuts into subscription sales opportunities. Sure give the existing a discount they can offer people that bring to a subscription and that is their reward.
Also, at the end of the day the subscriber wants to use the product they have purchased and I think those that want to pass it on to other users are not very valuable customers.
What about the existing revenue optimization strategy of Netflix to convert users on the verge of subscribing? Isn’t the point of current pricing to prevent price discovery so that certain premiums can be added on top of the actual utility of the platform to maximize revenue?
I think the graph makes sense for a commodity, but a paid viewing experience is too nuanced to be a commodity. Hence pricing scheme can’t be as transparent as a commodities index as well? Wdyt?
Sounds really interesting! A market that might never be feasible under a centralized database setup (with links to the banking and legacy systems). Although, I wonder how the concept will hold up in the face of high gas fees and the ever present blockchain "trilemma"? My idea is that at this point it's only feasible for subscriptions beyond a certain price point (say $100 or $1,000).
Nice article! Feel like the most "uncertain" outcome is whether the business truly wins. In your example, SaaS gets $4 royalty. But what if there was no 2nd hand market and the renter would have just paid another $50? Mark Cuban said it best - NFTs simply have to make businesses more competitive, productive and profitable.
There is nothing in the ideas mentioned above that a business cannot implement without blockchain. Furthermore, the idea of the secondary market for software use is not commercially sound. A consumer is unwise to purchase a subscription they don’t intend to use. They need to look at total length of use and factor in periods when they don’t use it. Passing on to others just cuts into subscription sales opportunities. Sure give the existing a discount they can offer people that bring to a subscription and that is their reward.
Also, at the end of the day the subscriber wants to use the product they have purchased and I think those that want to pass it on to other users are not very valuable customers.
In summary, why bother.
What about the existing revenue optimization strategy of Netflix to convert users on the verge of subscribing? Isn’t the point of current pricing to prevent price discovery so that certain premiums can be added on top of the actual utility of the platform to maximize revenue?
I think the graph makes sense for a commodity, but a paid viewing experience is too nuanced to be a commodity. Hence pricing scheme can’t be as transparent as a commodities index as well? Wdyt?
Sounds really interesting! A market that might never be feasible under a centralized database setup (with links to the banking and legacy systems). Although, I wonder how the concept will hold up in the face of high gas fees and the ever present blockchain "trilemma"? My idea is that at this point it's only feasible for subscriptions beyond a certain price point (say $100 or $1,000).
Nice article! Feel like the most "uncertain" outcome is whether the business truly wins. In your example, SaaS gets $4 royalty. But what if there was no 2nd hand market and the renter would have just paid another $50? Mark Cuban said it best - NFTs simply have to make businesses more competitive, productive and profitable.