Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Eli Hoffmann  

View SA Editor Eli Hoffmann's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    We're trying to have everything ready for tomorrow. Everything = minimum required to launch and iterate.
    Mar 30, 2015. 02:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Buy Auspex Ahead Of Pivotal Phase 3 Data In December 2014 [View article]
    Nice call Jason! Good work.
    Mar 30, 2015. 10:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha Expands Its Coverage To Mutual Funds [View article]
    misscbd,

    How about this...

    http://bit.ly/1FRlfe6
    Mar 27, 2015. 10:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    Thixotropic, it should now be fixed.
    Mar 26, 2015. 07:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    1. We'll probably launch with 5-10.
    2. Unlike PRO, what authors produce for their subscribers is for subscribers only, at their discretion. What many are considering offering is not simply "more great ideas" but things like real-time model portfolios.
    3. Having spoken to authors who plan to offer a premium subscription and also publish PRO articles, they plan to maintain or increase the number of PRO articles they're publishing - doing so is their biggest opportunity to market their premium subscription.
    Mar 26, 2015. 05:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    "I find it extremely irritating and time wasting when the same author writes the same article over and over..."

    Point well taken. And as I've already said, a kick in the butt for us to hone our editorial vision.

    But the broader point here, which some are missing but others have alluded to, is that complete reliance on ad revenue leads inevitably to this situation - where popularity is king, not quality. To be successful, a business needs to align its revenues with its aspirations. Total reliance on ad revenue can only lead a web business in one direction (most popular wins, quality be damned), and there's only so much one can do to finesse the path.

    Finding other revenue models to dovetail with ad revenue is the key to shifting the balance from popularity to quality. One way to do this is through subscriptions.

    Namely, if you can identify what it is people - even a small percentage of your readers - will pay for, then you can incentivize your producers (our authors) to focus on what users pay for rather than what gets the most pageviews. And you can onboard potentially thousands of new authors, many with niche expertise, if you can demonstrate that a small but significant percentage of your audience is willing to pay for something genuinely valuable.

    Yet, by playing your cards right and not losing sight of your community - including the folks who can't or aren't interested in anything but a great free experience - you can ensure that the shift toward quality enhances all users' experience.

    Case in point: The huge increase in high quality smallcap coverage we've achieved over the past two years is entirely due to the launch of SA PRO. The full version of SA PRO costs over $8K per year. It is clearly targeting institutional and HNW subscribers. And our subscribers are quite happy with PRO (higher than 60% renewal rate). What do PRO subscribers get? An early look at Top Ideas and some other high-quality long/short ideas. 24 hours. Then, everyone gets the article for 30 days. Then it's locked in our library for subscribers only.

    Since launching PRO, authors have produced over 11,000 PRO long and short ideas. How did that happen? Simple: We pay way more for PRO ideas (from $150-500, and two weekly awards of $2,500) than we do for non-PRO ideas ($35 base payment plus $10 per 1,000 pageviews). This resulted in authors who had previously resisted writing up their smallcap ideas due to lack of incentive doing so, and brought a huge number of new stock enthusiasts out of the woodwork.

    Is the 30-day-free model exactly right? Are we giving too much value to PRO subs, or conversely too much to free users? Hard to know. But did it shift the balance for some contributors and allow them to write up the ideas they were most passionate about? It definitely did.

    First/business class on airplanes works on a similar premise. Most of us are too cheap to shell out 2x or 3x on our tickets for a few hours of comfort. But some folks, for a variety of reasons, do so gladly. Collecting that money allows the airlines to keep prices down for us folks who fly coach, which I appreciate (even if I do find waiting until all the first class folk deplane before I can do so frustrating).
    Mar 26, 2015. 04:44 AM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    We didn't. Chris wrote this without any prompting.
    Mar 25, 2015. 05:58 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    1. Differentiation: Is it clear what the premium subscriber receives over and above what free readers get?
    2. Expertise: Does the author appear to have expertise in the area of his premium service. Editors will review the author’s free content and his profile to develop an opinion about this. Since premium services are an upsell from an author’s free content, it is critical that the author have established an ability to deliver on the promise of his premium service via publishing high-quality free content, and that he continue to do so after launch.
    3. Engagement: Does the author’s existing free content engage subscribers? Editors have a variety of tools at their disposal to assess an author’s ability to engage SA users compared to peer authors.
    4. Price: Does the pricing seem to reflect, generally, the value the author purports to provide?
    Mar 25, 2015. 05:43 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha Readers Forum [View instapost]
    This sounds like an addiction :-)
    Mar 25, 2015. 04:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    I will look into this for you and get back to you.
    Mar 25, 2015. 03:57 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    Please see my comment above. We recognize this and wouldn't have it any other way.

    But why does that need to preclude the possibility of connecting contributors with nice expertise with users willing to pay a premium for something not feasible on the free site.
    Mar 25, 2015. 03:56 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    We stopped highlighting those articles in emails, but we didn't put them behind a paywall. All PRO articles are still available to all users following an initial one day embargo.
    Mar 25, 2015. 03:54 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    I agree too! I would expect nothing else. It's crowdsourcing at its best. I also think this will continue to be the case.

    And I don't think that means there isn't room for authors with unique (sometimes niche) knowledge to connect with users that put a premium on that knowledge and would be willing to pay for it.
    Mar 25, 2015. 03:53 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha Expands Its Coverage To Mutual Funds [View article]
    We already have CEFs. What are we missing?
    Mar 25, 2015. 03:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Future Of Seeking Alpha [View article]
    Please see my comment above, and let me know if you have more questions.
    Mar 25, 2015. 02:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
775 Comments
1,473 Likes