Ning's Charges Seem Reasonable, But Still....
A few days ago I caused a bit of a tempest in a teapot -- and ticked off quite a few Net purists -- by suggesting that Ning Networks' recent announcement that they would suspend all free social networks they were hosting unless their owners forked over some money was inconsiderate and should lead to the broader Net community discussing imposing some sort of regulation on free services.
While my idea was widely misunderstood, I'll take responsibility for the poor communication. I wasn't so much advocating government interference as I was saying that it seemed to me that consumer protection had somehow to be factored into the free-online-services mix so people didn't end up with perceptual losses of some magnitude.
In any case, Ning has now announced their three-tiered pricing for paid social nets and they've come in with one plan at $2.95/mo. which seems quite reasonable as a replacement for the old free networks. If you buy a one-year plan at $19.95, your monthly cost is $1.66, hardly a burden for almost anyone interested in running a social network, even one being offered for free.
I applaud Ning for the pricing model and for doing a great job of differentiating their three plans from one another so the differences and benefits are really clear. That is so often not the case with tiered pricing models.
At the same time, I don't think the low price obviates my earlier observation that to the extent that consumers have invested time, energy and digital resources in their free Ning networks and are now being asked to pay for the service or lose it -- without sufficient prior notice -- their rights should be considered. I'm not sure the best mechanism for doing this. Government regulation may or may not be a solution; I'm not one who believes the government can't do anything well but I am also not one who thinks they need to do everything. But an idea needs to be proposed that would provide some measure of consumer protection in these situations.
Anyone?
