The Value Proposition of Charging: From "Free" to "Fair"
A recurring theme in the discussion is how charging for something, even a small amount, fundamentally alters its perception and the nature of the interaction. Users suggest that "free" often breeds suspicion or a lack of commitment, while a price tag can signal legitimacy, professionalism, and commitment from both parties.
- "If you charge money successfully it signals you are legit enough to get others to pay." – daedrdev
- "Also when I see a cool person, I think my stuff is not good enough to waste their time, but if they charge for it, then it’s a deal." – volemo
- "It's like a shortcut to perceived credibility" – KolibriFly
- "But charge $100 and that's it, that's all the strings attached. Straightforward transaction." – Cthulhu_
- HPsquared notes, "If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable."
- Nvermark expands on this, suggesting, "I expect that the act of taking a small social good that would not normally be available, or even allowed, but is being offered for free, feels subtly wrong. ‘Why would this person give me X for free?’ Makes us feel uncomfortable. We feel we are not seeing something, or perhaps freeloading." They contrast this with paying, stating, "But being able to pay for it suddenly fits a common pattern, even if the ‘product’ (hug or conversation) is novel."
- KolibriFly reiterates, "When there's a clear transaction, people feel entitled (in a good way) to your time."
The Ambiguity and Potential Downsides of "Free"
Conversely, offering services or items for free can lead to a range of negative outcomes, from overwhelming demand and no-shows to suspicion about hidden motives.
- Almondsetat expresses surprise, stating, "It's a peculiar turn of events I must admit, but I don't think that having those viewership numbers and an easibly reachable email and not getting contacted is actually common."
- Cthulhu_ points out the "catch" often associated with free things: "free internet for one month, catch is you're stuck on a year long contract. Free consult but the catch is you're in their systems now, agreed to something in the small print, and you now get cold calls to sell you stuff. Free social network but the catch is your data and personal photos are used for marketing and training AI."
- dotBen humorously suggests, "The best way to get rid of junk is not to put it outside your house with “free” on it. It’s to put “$10” on it. Someone will steal it." This is echoed by bravesoul2, who laments, "Gumtree free means 10 messages in the next 30 minutes. 1c or higher = ghost town."
- alias_neo recounts an experience where switching from free to a small charge drastically improved engagement: "When by the next day we'd had one enquiry from someone who didn't turn up, we changed tactic and switched everything to £1. Within a day the entire lot was gone, people turning up with copper coins from their piggy bank which we told them to keep."
- walthamstow notes a similar pattern on Facebook Marketplace: "£0 gets you a load of weirdos, scammers and unreliables, £5 gets you mostly normal people who will pick it up when they say they will."
- al_borland found listing a free item on Craigslist to be overwhelming: "I put a free item on Craigslist once and it was like a feeding frenzy. The first person who emailed me got it, but between their email and them getting to my house to pick it up, I got at least 40 other emails. It was very overwhelming."
The Nature of Knowledge Transfer and Education
The discussion touches on why people pay for education and knowledge, even when that information might be readily available elsewhere. The consensus leans towards the idea that payment facilitates a more structured or committed learning process, acting as a motivator and a form of "transmission."
- pyman questions, "Do people pay for knowledge or attention? Because let's be honest, most of the podcasts and books out there already contain more knowledge and wisdom than anyone needs to be successful in any profession."
- bawolff clarifies the difficulty of knowledge transfer: "The thing about wisdom is its pretty hard to transmit, there are no quick fixes, so people end up fruitlessly chasing it."
- fn-mote draws a parallel to schooling: "People pay to go to school where there are teachers that “make you work”... Most of them know they won’t read the (text)books and learn on their own. Even though the knowledge is available. I guess the money is for the transmission of the knowledge."
The "Freakonomics" Effect: Fines and Incentives
Several users reference the famous "Freakonomics" example of a daycare that implemented fines for late pickups, only to see the problem worsen. This sparked a debate about whether the fines were too low, if the intention was to deter behavior or simply cover costs, and the broader implications of pricing social norms.
- HPsquared links this to the "free hugs" scenario: "It ties in with the story in Freakonomics about the daycare that started to charge a small "fine" to discourage parents picking up the child late, with the effect that these incidents happened more often. Because the cost went from implicit (shame, etc) to explicit (it's only $10)."
- scott_w cautions against over-inference from this example: "I'd be careful of inferring too much from things like this, particularly given how much criticism Freakonomics has received."
- jpalomaki states, "It's a similar as described in Freakonomics book. Daycare was annoyed with parents picking up their kids late. They introduced a fee for this. As a result, late pick ups increased. Something that was not considered to be socially acceptable, became more acceptable when you put a price tag for it."
- verbify offers practical advice: "Clearly the fine wasn't high enough."
- bell-cot questions the stated goal: "Was the actual goal to stop the behavior? Or to cover their staffing & overhead costs for the extra time?"
- pferde suggests an alternative approach: "No, what they should have done is to increase the fine progressively for repeat offenders."
- KolibriFly finds value in the explicit nature of this pricing: "There's something oddly liberating about making the implicit social cost explicit; it gives both parties a clear structure."
Misleading Titles and the Role of Charity
A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the original submission's title, with many users feeling it was misleading because the event or proceedings were for charitable purposes. This highlights how context, especially when it involves good causes, can heavily influence the interpretation of financial transactions.
- "Title is a bit misleading, he became a popular academic/author and the proceedings are for charity. Once you are well known, you can charge for a lot of things, especially if it's for a good cause." – poisonborz
- "The title is ridiculously misleading when people are donating to charity." – trainerxr50
- "It is sort of entertaining to see the gymnastics writers (or LLMs) do to get clicks." – lotsofpulp
- eatonphil (likely the author of the original post) clarifies their intent: "To the contrary, I did not even send this post to my mailing list. It wasn't exactly a throwaway post but it was something more like that. A post I didn't expect anyone to care much about."
The Paradox of Reputation and Engagement
The conversation also delves into the complex relationship between someone's reputation, their reachability, and how people choose to engage with them. While fame might suggest a demand for interaction, it doesn't always translate into proactive outreach, especially if free interactions are perceived as having hidden costs.
- landgenoot shares their blogging experience: "My experience with blogging and being easily reachable is that you mostly get people with very specific questions/problems. Not someone who is interested in meeting you."
- KolibriFly suggests that personal signals can be more impactful than perceived: "Sometimes the 'signal' we put out is way more visible to the right people than we think."
- thenthenthen describes an experience where people sought them out for non-workshop related opportunities, even without explicit advertising: "There were 3 people who came there to meet me to chat about other non related opportunities and projects. We charged a small amount, 5$. It was not advertised or told (not by me or leaked through the topic of the workshop) that I would be there, nor am I famous. They came specifically for me, not the workshop (but did participate in a good way)."
- BlackFly offers a theory on why paid inquiries are more successful: "Instead I think that the payment creates the expectation that the inquiry will be answered and when someone expects an answer they are more willing to inquire. When the consultation is free or "time permitting", then it might simply be refused but making the inquiry itself isn't zero cost for the individual and their mental calculus makes it not worth asking."
The General Perception of Free vs. Paid FOSS and Software
A brief but notable sub-theme is how the perception of "free" software (like FOSS) mirrors some of the broader points about free services – it can sometimes be unfairly equated with lower quality due to its cost.
- "Similarly, people think FOSS software must not be as good as proprietary software because it's free." – em3rgent0rdr
- "There's always good and excellent FOSS. Sticking to open source forever :)" – ttb-2134
- "I think the opposite!" – bravesoul2
- "Yeah. Knew a guy who used to say open source is for poor people." – tormeh