Subscriptions are Over-Emphasized

WARNING: In alpha.

There is a trend towards trying to charge consumers a subscription instead of a one-time flat fee. I think it is human nature to gravitate towards a constant influx of cash instead of a one-time payout. Even professors doing research on the topic encourage the practice: “It’s hard to initiate subscriptions. But once you get them over that hurdle, great things happen.” - Peter Fader

Because we overvalue subscriptions, it makes more sense for companies to try to charge one-time fees even if equivalent in value to the NPV of the subscription. In English, this means given a rate of interest, we can mathematically equate any subscription with an associated one-time fee and vice versa. Below is a conversation that fleshes this idea out:

 Edwin: let me explain npv to you
 kchan: ahhaha
 Edwin: Basically, I've noticed that a lot of people tend to differentiate 
        passive and active income where they are essentially the same thing.
 Edwin: So number 1: why are passive and active income the same thing?
 kchan: uhm. they aren't
 kchan: passive makes me money without me trying
 Edwin: Because if you think about it, any active income you get now earns 
        interest.
 kchan: yeah
 Edwin: So really, what's the difference? Isn't interest passive income?
 kchan: yeah well i'm talking like an ice cream shop
 Edwin: So the realm of finance has a word/equation for this. It's called 
        NPV. The NPV is the present value of ALL future payouts of any given 
        resource taking into account the current interest rate.
 Edwin: Because what you really want to compare is the relative interest 
        rates vs. amount invested.
 Edwin: For example, if it costs you 100,000 to open an ice cream shop, you 
        have to compare the passive income of that versus the passive income 
        of just investing it into the stock market.
 Edwin: That's NPV.
 kchan: oh
 Edwin: If you think that you'll earn less in the first years
 Edwin: and more in the later years
 Edwin: whereas a stock investment will earn a constant amount
 Edwin: NPV will still take that into account
 Edwin: because having money NOW is more valuable than having money later.
 Edwin: does this make sense?
 kchan: yes
 Edwin: so what you really should be looking at
 Edwin: is the triangle of interest rate vs risk vs how well you can hedge 
        risk by physically working for something or understand the business.
 Edwin: (after NPV, the question becomes, given a perfect market, why do 
        different assets have differing interest rates)
 Edwin: the answer is because of the cost of risk
 Edwin: and supposedly the finance industry makes money because it efficiently 
        prices risk
 Edwin: being able to control risk is a cornerstone of finance
 Edwin: or at least evaluate and price it
 kchan: hmm.
 Edwin: the other reason why people like ice cream shops is because of 
        information asymmetry
 Edwin: but that's like lesson 3
 kchan: lesson 3?
 kchan: information asymmetry
 kchan: is there a book
 Edwin: no
 kchan: for this?
 Edwin: if i were to teach it it would be lesson 3
 Edwin: metaphore
 Edwin: just take a finance course
 kchan: grumble

 


  • featured – best thus far.
  • gamma – finished work.
  • beta – in progress.

  • all – all articles.
  • survey – comprehensive appraisal of a single subject.


Annotalia is a meta-recursive project to collect and editorialize comprehensive, high-quality sets of links on topics of interest.
[?]

see also: homepage
portfolio
librarything
twitter:@Poleris