I have no love for the Times, but this is unfair.
The downside of a lifetime subscription is that existing users can't exert any financial pressure on the provider. Normally if quality suffers some existing users will buy less, and just the threat of that keeps quality up. There is a reason we don't see many "All you can eat forever" diners. Granted content consumption is very different.
Another downside is that no one knows how long 'lifetime' really is. How long do most brands last? And this is a downside for both parties. You can't charge nearly what 100 years of good content would be worth because no one believes you'll really produce good content for 100 years. But people will rightly be reluctant to pay even the value of 1 year upfront.
Hmm interesting feedback.I guess I'll have to look at more Pay Per view style methods as it looks like lifetime subscriptions may not meet the needs of consumers. The way I see though is that offering a good,consistent user experience is important.That's why I thought the one off fee for access to all content would be better as once the person pays the fee,that person would have a lifetime of access to all content (existing and upcoming). I'm rather interested in knowing more about the 'all you can eat' type models as well as Per per view.
I do think that people are moving away from subscriptions so I'll need to make sure my offerings can keep up. I think the best thing to do is offer both subscription (tiered) as well as pay per view style options so that (nearly) everyone can be happy.
Thanks for the useful info on how long a 1 confirm transaction can take DeathAndTaxes.