Some of the suggested prices seem a little steep to me, but that may just be a gut reaction. The time and engagement commitment may keep sign-ups in check also, though buying in will probably help avoid drop-outs.
Why not tiered pricing? I.e. single session is $10, all 8 are $55 (if paid up front). You could also have a $5 "audit the course" option (all dollar values are subject to change).
As to set the pricing - your optimal total group size is 12. How many people joined your prior zoom call? How many other indicators of active demand do you have?
Alternatively - price could be free, but admittance is based on an essay. Presumably you derive value as the facilitator, so why not screen for the best & most original thinkers who would like to be a part of the discussion? If dollars is the only deciding factor you could charge $150 and run the risk of a class of terribly uninteresting people who meet the low threshold of "willing and able to pay $150 to signal their interest in Arnold Kling"
substack's monthly subscription minimum is $5, I think. Living in min. retirement income, I'd go about 0.5% of my monthly income (about $10/month). I think you should charge more like $100-200 (annual sub) with rewards to those whose papers are given the most FITs points by the others.
The Fantasy Intellectuals Team idea requires some referee. Probably more point tweaking, too. I'm suggesting the Team promoters (/owners) be the referee. And putting up the money for the reward, with some amount of the reward going to quality work, and some to quantity work.
I'd also suggest using Slack or Discord for special async comm between members of the groups.
I also think 2hr sessions are better, tho 90 min. is best.
I think I would be willing to pay 200$ for 8 sessions, if the sessions were two hours instead of one. One hour just has never seemed to be enough for serious discussion, as there are always 5-10 minutes of "Hi, welcome, let's wait for the stragglers to show up... ok so here's the topic... yadda yadda." For 8 one hour sessions I think I would peak at maybe 50$, but possibly 100$ if the other participants were interesting enough.
If you structured it like this, I'd do $50. If structured it as a intangible benefit of a charitable contribution (say a donation to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or something similar), I would do $100.
Arnold - I love the idea and would be thrilled to sign up. Maybe $200? I really have no sense of the appropriate price tho, so that may be way off from what you were thinking.
An auction, naturally.
If you're trying to avoid trolls like ones in the last meetup, my gut is that anything over $20 will do that.
Heying and Weinstein deserve a 0% FITS score over the last year, right?
Some of the suggested prices seem a little steep to me, but that may just be a gut reaction. The time and engagement commitment may keep sign-ups in check also, though buying in will probably help avoid drop-outs.
Why not tiered pricing? I.e. single session is $10, all 8 are $55 (if paid up front). You could also have a $5 "audit the course" option (all dollar values are subject to change).
As to set the pricing - your optimal total group size is 12. How many people joined your prior zoom call? How many other indicators of active demand do you have?
Alternatively - price could be free, but admittance is based on an essay. Presumably you derive value as the facilitator, so why not screen for the best & most original thinkers who would like to be a part of the discussion? If dollars is the only deciding factor you could charge $150 and run the risk of a class of terribly uninteresting people who meet the low threshold of "willing and able to pay $150 to signal their interest in Arnold Kling"
I think charge a high price, $200 or more. You are offering much more interaction than a typical substack offering.
Assuming the problem is discovering what the demand curve is, what about discovering a different point of that curve and then extrapolating ?
I suggest charging for one of two things:
- Further instructions on how to apply to the seminar.
- A 1 hour introductory session in order to talk in more detail about the purpose of the seminar, suggested readings, etc...
Once you know how many people are interested enough to participate in one of those things at X price, you can (more or less) extrapolate.
200$
substack's monthly subscription minimum is $5, I think. Living in min. retirement income, I'd go about 0.5% of my monthly income (about $10/month). I think you should charge more like $100-200 (annual sub) with rewards to those whose papers are given the most FITs points by the others.
The Fantasy Intellectuals Team idea requires some referee. Probably more point tweaking, too. I'm suggesting the Team promoters (/owners) be the referee. And putting up the money for the reward, with some amount of the reward going to quality work, and some to quantity work.
I'd also suggest using Slack or Discord for special async comm between members of the groups.
I also think 2hr sessions are better, tho 90 min. is best.
I’m in for $1000.
I think I would be willing to pay 200$ for 8 sessions, if the sessions were two hours instead of one. One hour just has never seemed to be enough for serious discussion, as there are always 5-10 minutes of "Hi, welcome, let's wait for the stragglers to show up... ok so here's the topic... yadda yadda." For 8 one hour sessions I think I would peak at maybe 50$, but possibly 100$ if the other participants were interesting enough.
If you structured it like this, I'd do $50. If structured it as a intangible benefit of a charitable contribution (say a donation to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or something similar), I would do $100.
I'd consider paying up to $300
Is the intent that this be a Substack subscriber level, as a yearly “subscription”, or a per-seminar payment?
I suggest a minimum of $100 and a suggestion of a maximum of $500 for those who can afford it.
Arnold - I love the idea and would be thrilled to sign up. Maybe $200? I really have no sense of the appropriate price tho, so that may be way off from what you were thinking.
Lee