Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Skool Community

Public โ€ข 84.6k โ€ข Paid

Facilitator Club

Public โ€ข 5.7k โ€ข Free

Product Synthesis

Public โ€ข 88 โ€ข Free

2 contributions to Product Synthesis
The first ONCE product from 37signals
You've probably already heard me talking about this, but the first ONCE product from 37signal is available now, it's called Campfire. The idea is that instead of paying for Slack forever, you pay for this once, I really hope more of these types of products take off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAzRUbE1AAw
5
20
New comment Feb 15
2 likes โ€ข Feb 15
Couldn't care less about the actual product but it's great to see a company re-invent their pricing model. Even though this was the gold standard just a few years ago, it's amazing how much freedom it exudes. With the number of monthly subscriptions escalating, I hope we'll get to see this more often again. Thanks for sharing, @David Finnegan !
Are products business models going back to "traditional" ?
I need to put some thoughts down in writing and I would love to hear your thoughts. A few "modern tech companies / startups", in an attempt to pursue profits or profitability are introducing changes to their business model. The examples I have in mind are: - Netflix (re)introducing subscriptions with advertising and expecting it will be the most profitable - Amazon Prime Video doing the same with advertising - Uber extending into more traditional "car rental" The pressure for profitability or at least the pressure companies feel to show they have a plan to be financially sustainable is understandable in the current economy. High interest rates, make borrowing expensive and reduce the appetite for high-risk investment for VCs and the like. So companies looking for financing need to show their numbers are solid. Amazon does not seem to have "profitability issues" overall, and maybe this move only applies to streaming services. What about Uber? What I find surprising (but at the same time is to be expected) is that companies that have been "disruptive" turn to more traditional ways to secure revenues: i.e. advertising as on TV. Maybe this was a long time in the making or it is the first response in a time of crisis where investors and shareholders would respond more favourably to a business model that they understand and it is has been proven to work in the past. Or maybe these companies have failed to create new ways to secure revenues and be profitable and the current economy has just accelerated a return to "old ways" that was already inevitable. I using the word "traditional" here for lack of a better one. I use it to designate business models that have been around for decades like advertising on TV and have been proven by incumbent companies. What do you think? Do you have more examples of this trend or examples that go against it? Do you see the same trend? Do you think it is here to stay or is it only a temporary response? Is this a sign that when companies become mature they do not have much choice but to conform to "traditional" business models?
3
4
New comment Mar 5
3 likes โ€ข Feb 15
hey Davide, I think the term "disruptive" is a little misleading. Many business models that spawned in recent years were disruptive not by value but by capital. These businesses grew by adding a service to or reducing the overall cost of a traditional model, all while burning VC money to clear the losses caused. In many cases, consumers profited, but these times are coming to an end, and companies have to start adding value-based price tags to their offerings. In this respect, I believe the turnaround is not in the direction of traditional models, but that reality is simply returning. To me, the fact that Netflix and Amazon are adding ad-based subscriptions to their quiver is only a means to an awkward end of low or no profitability. Let's see if they can keep up the value for money from the last decade. I think many of those "crazy" business models in recent years not only relied on huge funding rounds, they also had no other or bigger purpose than 'steal' a whole market and turn it into a monopoly in favour of their new owners. But the reality here is that if you squeeze a shareholder-owned food delivery business like Doordash, Wolt or UberEats between the consumer and a business that's already barely profitable (restaurant), someone will have to foot that bill. It's a fragile structure and I don't think (and hope) it's particularly sustainable. Oh, and since you asked for more examples, let's not forget the most stupid of them all: https://gorillas.io/
1-2 of 2
Matthias Jakubek
2
15points to level up
@matthias-jakubek-5262
I'm a jack of all trades and a master of none. Brand designer transitioning to become a strategic clarity coach.

Active 2d ago
Joined Feb 8, 2024
INTP
Berlin, Germany
powered by