AOL eventually turned to a flat fee for unlimited access. Do you think AOL should have turned to unlimited access to the web? Did this lead to their success?
I think that AOL should have turned to unlimited access. If they had not done this, customers would have taken their business to companies that were only charging a flat fee. I think that allowing for unlimited access did lead to their success for this reason.
Lynne: I think that they definitely should've turned to unlimited access to the web. I think that with the flat fee, more people thought that the price was worth it rather than paying by the hour and getting more users this way, compared to having a stable amount of users with an hourly fee (bc it's pricey) ultimately results in more of a financial gain for the company.
I agree that it ultimately resulted in a more financial gain. Less and less people thought that an hourly fee was worth it, and paying one flat fee was much better for their finances.
I think they did the right thing to turn to unlimited access because all of their competitors were doing it. If they still charged a fee per hour, than customers would have switched to other companies and AOL would have lost money and clients. Even if AOL did not want to switch, they had to face the fact that the industry was changing, and they had to change with it.
I completely agree. Their only option was to change with the industry. They would have lost a lot of business if they kept charging their customers so much.
I think that it was the right choice for AOL to have a flat fee because it proved to be successful for them. It made customers a lot happier. Additionally, they had to keep up with what the other companies were doing. They would not have been successful without doing this.
I agree with this. I think that users would've turned away from AOL and gone to their competition if they had not switched to a flat fee because it's clearly more convenient for the consumer.
Riley: I think it was a smart decision once MSN did the unlimited access because it would have been unsustainable for AOL to make users pay hourly when they could have turned to MSN for unlimited access at a lower cost. It only made sense for AOL to follow suit in order for them to keep up their numbers in terms of users.
Erin Brady: I agree that it would have been unsustainable for AOL to charge an hourly rate when MSN, a major competitor, was allowing for unlimited access at lower costs.
While AOL was successful in what they were doing, MSN did put them at risk. Changing their fee I think was just another step in developing their business. It ultimately had to be done in order to save and gain more customers in the long run.
Erin Burke I definitely think that the switch to a flat fee was a part of the thing that started to take AOL down. Because they had so many competitors, it was inevitable that they would need to switch to the flat fee, but the 19 hr shut down was super detrimental to the company. And the fact that they went from like 1.5 to 4.5 million hrs was crazy. They just couldn't handle it. If they had prepared better for the situation i think that it would've gone a lot better for AOL. Also the whole quote about lines at Disney World seemed NAIVE to me because of the way that I have seen the world evolve on the internet. The next big thing doesn't need to be associated with a brand if it is truly genius, on the internet at least.
Interesting point. I think though that even if they don't start out as a brand, internet companies become a brand. And be becoming a brand, their valuation as a company rises.
Riley: You're right about the Disney World analogy because AOL had clear competitors that users could turn to, like MSN, so it wasn't just a given that people would want to wait around for the service forever.
I think this did lead to its success because it kept them with their customers, who might have left if they had kept their model. I think it was a smart decision to do so when they did to defeat competition. - Elliot
I think that they should have turned to unlimited access to the web. By only charging a flat fee it set them up for success because an average consumer would not want to pay that much money for something that is virtual. By allowing a flat fee it is a hard blow up front but it allows the consumer the security that they will always have access to what they bought.
Erin Burke I think that's a good point, longevity is more important than short term success adn the flat rate probably allowed for that even if it did have its trouble in the beginning.
I think AOL was aware of its competitors and the market. While they were losing value for many of the customers that went over the limit, they ultimately kept other users that would have switched to another service otherwise. I think this led to their success, as they were aware of their competitors and creating a name for themselves. A flat fee also appeals to customers more because it is one less thing to worry about.
i know that AOL was definitely nervous about going unlimited, because they had users paying for overages, but ultimately i think it was the smarter move to keep up with their competitiors
probably, i mean i know it was a really big company with a large following, but as more and more companies did flat rate people would've abandoned the AOL ship
Ppl definitely would've left. The payment model wasn't sustainable and so many other companies were going to the unlimited model. Just think about cell phones. We now have the option of unlimited and if a carrier didn't offer that, people wouldn't use their service.
I think people definitely would have left. Nobody wants to waste tons of money when there's another option that costs less, even if it's slightly worse.
Hannah: I think that having unlimited access would be a smart business move because other companies were starting to do the same type of platform without having a flat fee but because AOL already had a loyal following at this point I don't know if it was necessary.
I think the flat fee for unlimited access was very smart. People clearly wanted to explore the web and spend lots of time online, but not at the expense of their wallets. It made them successful because people stuck with AOL and were happy, as opposed to complaining or leaving completely.
I think that unlimited access was definitely the smart move to make in order to keep customers and gain customers. Switching to a flat fee definitely helped people stay with AOL because paying the rates they were before were way more expensive and people could not afford to stay with AOL since other companies were moving onto flat rates, making AOL less desirable.
Was it really a good idea to try to gain customers? If you gain too many then a platform crashes which ends up costing the company more with angry customers
True, but there were so many people NOT on the internet at that time, that they had to stay competitive. My parents are still with AOL because it's what they know. And connection issues and crashes were more tolerated then because everyone had them.
This was supposed to be a video. Blogger fail I think! https://www.youtube.com/embed/dFuUCpBbbHw
ReplyDeleteI think that AOL should have turned to unlimited access. If they had not done this, customers would have taken their business to companies that were only charging a flat fee. I think that allowing for unlimited access did lead to their success for this reason.
Delete^Erin Brady
DeleteLynne: I think that they definitely should've turned to unlimited access to the web. I think that with the flat fee, more people thought that the price was worth it rather than paying by the hour and getting more users this way, compared to having a stable amount of users with an hourly fee (bc it's pricey) ultimately results in more of a financial gain for the company.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it ultimately resulted in a more financial gain. Less and less people thought that an hourly fee was worth it, and paying one flat fee was much better for their finances.
DeleteI think they did the right thing to turn to unlimited access because all of their competitors were doing it. If they still charged a fee per hour, than customers would have switched to other companies and AOL would have lost money and clients. Even if AOL did not want to switch, they had to face the fact that the industry was changing, and they had to change with it.
ReplyDeleteExactly. And people couldn't pay those rates forever!
DeleteI completely agree. Their only option was to change with the industry. They would have lost a lot of business if they kept charging their customers so much.
DeleteI think that it was the right choice for AOL to have a flat fee because it proved to be successful for them. It made customers a lot happier. Additionally, they had to keep up with what the other companies were doing. They would not have been successful without doing this.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. I think that users would've turned away from AOL and gone to their competition if they had not switched to a flat fee because it's clearly more convenient for the consumer.
DeleteYeah. The internet was hanging and evolving very quickly, and AOL would never have survived if they didn't change with it.
DeleteRiley: I think it was a smart decision once MSN did the unlimited access because it would have been unsustainable for AOL to make users pay hourly when they could have turned to MSN for unlimited access at a lower cost. It only made sense for AOL to follow suit in order for them to keep up their numbers in terms of users.
ReplyDeleteErin Brady: I agree that it would have been unsustainable for AOL to charge an hourly rate when MSN, a major competitor, was allowing for unlimited access at lower costs.
DeleteWhile AOL was successful in what they were doing, MSN did put them at risk. Changing their fee I think was just another step in developing their business. It ultimately had to be done in order to save and gain more customers in the long run.
DeleteErin Burke
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the switch to a flat fee was a part of the thing that started to take AOL down. Because they had so many competitors, it was inevitable that they would need to switch to the flat fee, but the 19 hr shut down was super detrimental to the company. And the fact that they went from like 1.5 to 4.5 million hrs was crazy. They just couldn't handle it. If they had prepared better for the situation i think that it would've gone a lot better for AOL. Also the whole quote about lines at Disney World seemed NAIVE to me because of the way that I have seen the world evolve on the internet. The next big thing doesn't need to be associated with a brand if it is truly genius, on the internet at least.
Interesting point. I think though that even if they don't start out as a brand, internet companies become a brand. And be becoming a brand, their valuation as a company rises.
DeleteIf you think there should not have been a flat fee, how would you expect AOL to keep their customer base? - Elliot
DeleteRiley: You're right about the Disney World analogy because AOL had clear competitors that users could turn to, like MSN, so it wasn't just a given that people would want to wait around for the service forever.
DeleteI think this did lead to its success because it kept them with their customers, who might have left if they had kept their model. I think it was a smart decision to do so when they did to defeat competition. - Elliot
ReplyDeleteAakash: Yes, they were able to keep their loyal customers while also being able to grow their customer base which allowed them to soar to new levels.
DeleteI think that they should have turned to unlimited access to the web. By only charging a flat fee it set them up for success because an average consumer would not want to pay that much money for something that is virtual. By allowing a flat fee it is a hard blow up front but it allows the consumer the security that they will always have access to what they bought.
ReplyDeleteThis is Aakash
DeleteErin Burke
DeleteI think that's a good point, longevity is more important than short term success adn the flat rate probably allowed for that even if it did have its trouble in the beginning.
I think AOL was aware of its competitors and the market. While they were losing value for many of the customers that went over the limit, they ultimately kept other users that would have switched to another service otherwise. I think this led to their success, as they were aware of their competitors and creating a name for themselves. A flat fee also appeals to customers more because it is one less thing to worry about.
ReplyDeletei know that AOL was definitely nervous about going unlimited, because they had users paying for overages, but ultimately i think it was the smarter move to keep up with their competitiors
ReplyDeleteDo you think people would have AOL if they did not change what they were doing?
DeleteHi Anabell - I see you! And yes they were nervous about unlimited because of all the money they'd lose.
Delete*left AOL
Deleteprobably, i mean i know it was a really big company with a large following, but as more and more companies did flat rate people would've abandoned the AOL ship
DeletePpl definitely would've left. The payment model wasn't sustainable and so many other companies were going to the unlimited model. Just think about cell phones. We now have the option of unlimited and if a carrier didn't offer that, people wouldn't use their service.
DeleteI think people definitely would have left. Nobody wants to waste tons of money when there's another option that costs less, even if it's slightly worse.
DeleteHannah: I think that having unlimited access would be a smart business move because other companies were starting to do the same type of platform without having a flat fee but because AOL already had a loyal following at this point I don't know if it was necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a good point! AOL did have a loyal following, maybe switching was an unnecessary risk to take at this point in time.
DeleteI think the flat fee for unlimited access was very smart. People clearly wanted to explore the web and spend lots of time online, but not at the expense of their wallets. It made them successful because people stuck with AOL and were happy, as opposed to complaining or leaving completely.
ReplyDeleteAOL made the internet seem manageable and understandable to non-computer people :)
DeleteI've posted the other questions - feel free to move on when you're ready.
ReplyDeleteI think that unlimited access was definitely the smart move to make in order to keep customers and gain customers. Switching to a flat fee definitely helped people stay with AOL because paying the rates they were before were way more expensive and people could not afford to stay with AOL since other companies were moving onto flat rates, making AOL less desirable.
ReplyDeleteWas it really a good idea to try to gain customers? If you gain too many then a platform crashes which ends up costing the company more with angry customers
DeleteTrue, but there were so many people NOT on the internet at that time, that they had to stay competitive. My parents are still with AOL because it's what they know. And connection issues and crashes were more tolerated then because everyone had them.
Delete