Is it really ethical to try to get as much money out of your customers? If you are making a profit after all costs are considered, how much profit is too much?
The question is maybe not too important when applied to something like an e-book, but it becomes different when applied to something people think they cannot do without, like a college education or healthcare. In those situations we have seen vendors will gouge you for as much as they can get, which ends up being as much as you have.
We as a society need to rethink whether that should be considered acceptable behavior. I don't know if legislation is necessarily the right solution (I am inclined to think it is not) but at the very least people should feel shameful for being so greedy.
Is it really ethical to try to get as much money out of your customers? If you are making a profit after all costs are considered, how much profit is too much?
Is this also true with regards to charging more as a consultant/freelancer or about negotiating a better salary? We see a lot of stories like that on here too.
The problem is defining 'greed' is hard. Is a software developer asking for a $100k salary inherently 'greedy' for earning more than double the average US wage? Is someone earning $20k and pushing for a raise to $30k 'greedy' because someone in Africa lives on $1 a day?
Earning $100-150k in a year from a few e-books might seem 'greedy' in some ways, but then you could compare it to the textbook author who supposedly spent $24m building a house from the profits on some calculus textbooks.. ;-) http://castingoutnines.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/where-the-mo...
Rather than have such (unresolvable) debates, it tends to be simpler to rely on economics and charge what the market will bear because while it's not perfect, it's as fair and objective a value as could be arrived at through even the most perfect of debates.
So because it's hard to be ethical we shouldn't try? Because it is hard to quantify greed it is no longer a bad thing?
Because other people are doing it too is a good justification?
I recently watched the movie "Django Rising" and the character of Leonardi diCaprio troubled me greatly. Not because I thought he was really evil but because I thought he really wasn't. Had I been born in that time, son of a slave owner who was son of a slave owner, brought up surrounded by the values of that time, would I have been able to recognize that slavery was evil, would I have had the courage to do anything about it? Would I have behaved any differently from how Leo's character behaved?
> Is it really ethical to try to get as much money out of your customers?
I'm going to go with "yes" in the absence of any reason not to. In a fair deal, both sides should get a roughly equal amount of value from the transaction. If the customer would be willing to pay more without a second thought, but you artificially restrict the price out of some ethical compunction, then the customer is coming out ahead. Why is it ethical for the customer to come out ahead but unethical for both parties to profit equally? That line of thought does not make sense to me.
In the case of something like healthcare, I don't think your real objection is that equitable business transactions are unethical. I think your real objection is that you believe healthcare should be a public service rather than a fair exchange of value between private parties.
Neo-classical economics suggests that it is, in fact ethical to get as much money as possible out of your customers.
Not because people should only care about themselves, but because redistribution through the tax system, and charitable giving, are far more efficient at producing net gain for society, than being "nice" to your customers.
Competition is what prevents people from being "gouged" when it comes to the necessities of life, and in the absence of competition, yes, government intervention is justified.
While the author is a monopolist ex post, in that once he writes his book, he has a monopoly, the market is competitive ex ante, in that anyone can choose to write a book on that subject matter.
So it is almost certainly justified to maximize profit, just as it is in most other businesses.
Where do you draw the line? How much is "too much" profit? Would it be ok if he made $50k per book instead of $100k?
It's not like the guy's making billions. He's working his ass off and producing extremely valuable content to make an income that is maybe comparable to a senior google engineer. Given all the blatant fraud and theft going in the world these days at a million times the scale, I can't imagine why you'd choose to pick on someone trying to sell a good product for as much as people are willing to pay for it.
Being able to make a comfortable living by doing something like self publishing tech books is actually a huge coup for the little guy, not a form of greedy exploitation. It makes me happy that so many people are willing to support such an endeavor.
Okay, so I'm not alone on this. Trying to wring every last penny out of your customer with inflated prices just so you can brag about it on guest blog posts isn't cool.
For those who do want to maxprice your product and jack your customers, at least don't go saying you care about the startup community. Actions speak louder than words.
I've found it annoying how he's milking his mailing list (that he got off of HN publicity) for all it's worth. He used to hit us with a sales pitch basically every day, now it's only every 5 - 9 days or so.
This is late, but do you remember how he got his mailing list off of HN? -He started an interesting experiment about starting a business from scratch, and planning to reach X thousand dollars of income per month in only a few months. "The Web-App Challenge" or something.
That was a very interesting project, so I signed up for updates. Not long after that, his e-mails started being mostly about selling ConvertKit to us, interspersed with useful(-looking?) articles. I can't help but feel like selling ConvertKit was his goal right from the start, and that the web app challenge was just a ruse to get us to receive his sales pitches. This is very clever, of course, but it's sleazy too.
ConvertKit is the thing he made as part of his "Web-App Challenge". Of course he's going to talk about it in his emails!!!
The whole point of signing up for the list is to see how he does what he says he's going to do. The emails are showing you almost EXACTLY what to do if you want to copy him. Would you prefer he put you on his list, then never mention the actual thing he's building?!
Could you try any harder to find something to complain about?
Comments
Is everything only about money?
Is it really ethical to try to get as much money out of your customers? If you are making a profit after all costs are considered, how much profit is too much?
The question is maybe not too important when applied to something like an e-book, but it becomes different when applied to something people think they cannot do without, like a college education or healthcare. In those situations we have seen vendors will gouge you for as much as they can get, which ends up being as much as you have.
We as a society need to rethink whether that should be considered acceptable behavior. I don't know if legislation is necessarily the right solution (I am inclined to think it is not) but at the very least people should feel shameful for being so greedy.
Is it really ethical to try to get as much money out of your customers? If you are making a profit after all costs are considered, how much profit is too much?
Is this also true with regards to charging more as a consultant/freelancer or about negotiating a better salary? We see a lot of stories like that on here too.
The problem is defining 'greed' is hard. Is a software developer asking for a $100k salary inherently 'greedy' for earning more than double the average US wage? Is someone earning $20k and pushing for a raise to $30k 'greedy' because someone in Africa lives on $1 a day?
Earning $100-150k in a year from a few e-books might seem 'greedy' in some ways, but then you could compare it to the textbook author who supposedly spent $24m building a house from the profits on some calculus textbooks.. ;-) http://castingoutnines.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/where-the-mo...
Rather than have such (unresolvable) debates, it tends to be simpler to rely on economics and charge what the market will bear because while it's not perfect, it's as fair and objective a value as could be arrived at through even the most perfect of debates.
So because it's hard to be ethical we shouldn't try? Because it is hard to quantify greed it is no longer a bad thing?
Because other people are doing it too is a good justification?
I recently watched the movie "Django Rising" and the character of Leonardi diCaprio troubled me greatly. Not because I thought he was really evil but because I thought he really wasn't. Had I been born in that time, son of a slave owner who was son of a slave owner, brought up surrounded by the values of that time, would I have been able to recognize that slavery was evil, would I have had the courage to do anything about it? Would I have behaved any differently from how Leo's character behaved?
How do you recommend pricing a product?
> Is it really ethical to try to get as much money out of your customers?
I'm going to go with "yes" in the absence of any reason not to. In a fair deal, both sides should get a roughly equal amount of value from the transaction. If the customer would be willing to pay more without a second thought, but you artificially restrict the price out of some ethical compunction, then the customer is coming out ahead. Why is it ethical for the customer to come out ahead but unethical for both parties to profit equally? That line of thought does not make sense to me.
In the case of something like healthcare, I don't think your real objection is that equitable business transactions are unethical. I think your real objection is that you believe healthcare should be a public service rather than a fair exchange of value between private parties.
Neo-classical economics suggests that it is, in fact ethical to get as much money as possible out of your customers.
Not because people should only care about themselves, but because redistribution through the tax system, and charitable giving, are far more efficient at producing net gain for society, than being "nice" to your customers.
Competition is what prevents people from being "gouged" when it comes to the necessities of life, and in the absence of competition, yes, government intervention is justified.
While the author is a monopolist ex post, in that once he writes his book, he has a monopoly, the market is competitive ex ante, in that anyone can choose to write a book on that subject matter.
So it is almost certainly justified to maximize profit, just as it is in most other businesses.
Where do you draw the line? How much is "too much" profit? Would it be ok if he made $50k per book instead of $100k?
It's not like the guy's making billions. He's working his ass off and producing extremely valuable content to make an income that is maybe comparable to a senior google engineer. Given all the blatant fraud and theft going in the world these days at a million times the scale, I can't imagine why you'd choose to pick on someone trying to sell a good product for as much as people are willing to pay for it.
Being able to make a comfortable living by doing something like self publishing tech books is actually a huge coup for the little guy, not a form of greedy exploitation. It makes me happy that so many people are willing to support such an endeavor.
Okay, so I'm not alone on this. Trying to wring every last penny out of your customer with inflated prices just so you can brag about it on guest blog posts isn't cool.
For those who do want to maxprice your product and jack your customers, at least don't go saying you care about the startup community. Actions speak louder than words.
I've found it annoying how he's milking his mailing list (that he got off of HN publicity) for all it's worth. He used to hit us with a sales pitch basically every day, now it's only every 5 - 9 days or so.
Would that be the opt-in mailing list?
The one that he got off of HN publicity, by posting useful information on his site to share with other people?
Yes, that would be the one. The fact that it was opt-in is not relevant to him using it way too aggressively.
If you opt-in to a mailing list, and don't like it, then opt-out. Pretty simple stuff ...
This is late, but do you remember how he got his mailing list off of HN? -He started an interesting experiment about starting a business from scratch, and planning to reach X thousand dollars of income per month in only a few months. "The Web-App Challenge" or something.
That was a very interesting project, so I signed up for updates. Not long after that, his e-mails started being mostly about selling ConvertKit to us, interspersed with useful(-looking?) articles. I can't help but feel like selling ConvertKit was his goal right from the start, and that the web app challenge was just a ruse to get us to receive his sales pitches. This is very clever, of course, but it's sleazy too.
ConvertKit is the thing he made as part of his "Web-App Challenge". Of course he's going to talk about it in his emails!!!
The whole point of signing up for the list is to see how he does what he says he's going to do. The emails are showing you almost EXACTLY what to do if you want to copy him. Would you prefer he put you on his list, then never mention the actual thing he's building?!
Could you try any harder to find something to complain about?
It's not sleazy and not particularly clever. You're too early along in your business journey to appreciate it. Once you do, you'll make more money.