Comments for Persistent Beta

Comment on Summerfest game 3: All good things must come to an end. by Playoffs, Game 2: The #1 seed

Playoffs, Game 2: The #1 seed — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:30:40 +0000

[...] us facing the #1 seed, the Oakdale Red Sox. We saw these guys in the Summerfest tournament, where they beat us 15-3, so we knew they were [...]

Comment on Game 1: Harsh Lessons by Playoffs, Game 1: The one I missed

Playoffs, Game 1: The one I missed — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:19:33 +0000

[...] split into two sections), so we faced the 7th seed, the Roseville Giants. This is the team that beat us 12-3 to start the season. Christina says they came in feeling kind of cocky, probably because they beat [...]

Comment on Game 5: The run-down by Kevin Matheny

Kevin Matheny — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:29:52 +0000

I used to like sacrifice bunts, but now I dislike them. The problem I have is that trading an out to move the runner into scoring position is billed as a good tactical move, and it often isn’t. It can increase the probability of a run scoring if the guy you have bunting was going to make an out already, or was going to hit into a double play – but why is that guy in your lineup?

Comment on Marketing miss. by Kevin Matheny

Kevin Matheny — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:24:31 +0000

You’re right – many (if not most) people mistake the cost of the network for the cost of the content.

Comment on Game 5: The run-down by Talley Sue

Talley Sue — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:23:21 +0000

I love run-downs. I think they’re my favorite part of baseball. Just behind them in the sacrifice bunt.

Comment on Crossposted from Goodreads by Talley Sue

Talley Sue — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:21:47 +0000

I’m glad I’m not the only one who looks back on stuff I’ve written and likes it. It feels good to admire my own skills. Then I feel a little silly, so I never mention it.

Comment on Marketing miss. by Talley Sue

Talley Sue — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:19:13 +0000

You’re right–this is completely being seen as a price hike, and not a wider offering, etc.

An increase by $4. In a year, that’s nearly $50.

Of course, it’s a 20% increase, which is big. Consumers may easily believe that Netflix’s increased costs do not exist, and that the price hike is simply “because we can.”

Now, they WERE giving people streaming for free. Maybe they needed to have first cancelled free streaming, and then given people a month break before they said, “well, we’ll give you streaming for $4 a month.”

I think it was a mistake to give unlimited free screening at all.

And I think the reaction is driven because in general, people do NOT want to pay for content on the Internet. They don’t even want to pay subscription costs. (or, they think of their ISP costs and their hardware as “subscription costs” and don’t consider that there are costs to Netflix on the NYTimes for delivering content–let alone creating it)

Comment on Marketing miss. by MOM

MOM — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:07:42 +0000

I like your arguments. I am a big fan of Netflix and feel that we get a great deal paying only $10.99 for 1 disc at a time and free streaming. We’d will go to unlimited streaming for $8.00 a month any time.

P.S. Due to the richness of offerings delivered by way of our Roku box, we have canceled our cable account.
That saves us $70.00 a month.

Comment on Marketing miss. by Nate

Nate — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:17:13 +0000

I agree. They are missing an opportunity to tell the story better and better sell the new pricing scheme. Don’t make us feel like we were robbing them for years and now they are ajusting to make us pay what they deserve.

Comment on Nell and I wrote a children’s book today by Nate m

Nate m — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 01:54:12 +0000

Brilliant. I love it :)