Want to meet people, try charging them for it?(notes.eatonphil.com)
notes.eatonphil.com
Want to meet people, try charging them for it?
https://notes.eatonphil.com/2025-06-28-want-to-meet-people-charge-them.html
92 comments
Paying ⇒ customer ⇒ expectations
> I enjoy serendipitous interactions with beautifully weird people
Gosh, I wish I could articulate that into words when I was younger. I remember having a fun conversation with a batshit insane lady who walked into a porch party, and one of my friends thought that I actually thought she was sane.
Gosh, I wish I could articulate that into words when I was younger. I remember having a fun conversation with a batshit insane lady who walked into a porch party, and one of my friends thought that I actually thought she was sane.
I'm also liable to think insane people might be sane
When the whole world is insane, who is to judge who is sane?
The symbolist doodle illustrating that is great. The freaked-out worm in the top hat is being followed by a black cloud of anxiety, and it wants to eat him for dinner. The other worm, in a bowler and dark glasses (probably indicating modesty and chill), is supplying support and a pat on the back.
This reminds me of video that went simi viral a decade or so back.
Not sure how much of it was staged, but the creators went to a public place and stood next to some “free hugs”-people and then put up a sign “Premium hugs $1” and apparently collected more hugs to the chargrin of the free-huggers.
Not sure how much of it was staged, but the creators went to a public place and stood next to some “free hugs”-people and then put up a sign “Premium hugs $1” and apparently collected more hugs to the chargrin of the free-huggers.
If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.
It ties in with the story in Freakonomics about the daycare that started to charge a small "fine" to discourage parents picking up the child late, with the effect that these incidents happened more often. Because the cost went from implicit (shame, etc) to explicit (it's only $10).
It ties in with the story in Freakonomics about the daycare that started to charge a small "fine" to discourage parents picking up the child late, with the effect that these incidents happened more often. Because the cost went from implicit (shame, etc) to explicit (it's only $10).
I'd be careful of inferring too much from things like this, particularly given how much criticism Freakonomics has received. One example from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11eTG4_iwqw&pp=ygUVZGVhdGggb...
> If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.
To address your point explicitly, if someone believes the cost of a hug is higher than $1 ("higher than expected cost"), then offering one for $1 should trigger a similar suspicion in your head.
Think about it, if a stranger offered you a free Porsche, you'd rightly be suspicious. Would you be less suspicious if they offered that same car for $500?
> If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.
To address your point explicitly, if someone believes the cost of a hug is higher than $1 ("higher than expected cost"), then offering one for $1 should trigger a similar suspicion in your head.
Think about it, if a stranger offered you a free Porsche, you'd rightly be suspicious. Would you be less suspicious if they offered that same car for $500?
I don’t think your example carries over to hugs.
Porsches are worth big money. The “costs” for hugs are more of a social calculation.
I expect that the act of taking a small social good that would not normally be available, or even allowed, but is being offered for free, feels subtly wrong.
“Why would this person give me X for free?” Makes us feel uncomfortable. We feel we are not seeing something, or perhaps freeloading. Which prompts a subconscious threat or status calculation, not a simple cost calculation.
But being able to pay for it suddenly fits a common pattern, even if the “product” (hug or conversation) is novel.
Porsches are worth big money. The “costs” for hugs are more of a social calculation.
I expect that the act of taking a small social good that would not normally be available, or even allowed, but is being offered for free, feels subtly wrong.
“Why would this person give me X for free?” Makes us feel uncomfortable. We feel we are not seeing something, or perhaps freeloading. Which prompts a subconscious threat or status calculation, not a simple cost calculation.
But being able to pay for it suddenly fits a common pattern, even if the “product” (hug or conversation) is novel.
You're still inferring too much from it. Remember, this was a viral video, so there's also the simple explanation that it might have been staged. If it weren't, there are some really obviously, mundane, reasons that have nothing to do with money. Examples: the people paying saw the people getting free hugs and not getting stabbed, so they were willing to trust the stranger.
>there's also the simple explanation that it might have been staged.
Well with that mentality this whole conversation is useless. You can't argue any perspective on a faulty premise.
Well with that mentality this whole conversation is useless. You can't argue any perspective on a faulty premise.
> Well with that mentality this whole conversation is useless.
Yes, it very well might be. Let’s look at the post I’m replying to:
>> If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.
That’s some deep psychological explanation for something when the simplest explanation could be “it was staged.” I hate to be cynical but it’s not exactly uncommon in show business!
Yes, it very well might be. Let’s look at the post I’m replying to:
>> If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.
That’s some deep psychological explanation for something when the simplest explanation could be “it was staged.” I hate to be cynical but it’s not exactly uncommon in show business!
I feel in both examples I need more context. Like maybe he $1 hug was from an extremely attractive person. Yes, they will pay for that hug over the free normal or below average hug.
Likewise, "free car" can come from a family or friend. So I might trust it more than a $500 beater that I'd immediately take to shop.
Likewise, "free car" can come from a family or friend. So I might trust it more than a $500 beater that I'd immediately take to shop.
One time my daughter fell (OK she did something silly and jumped) and hit her head on a metal pole at a science center (she's fine, it was just a couple of stitches). My wife took her to the hospital, and (mislead by the confusing signage) accidentally parked in the ambulance parking area directly out front. Later we collected the car and saw a parking ticket. On seeing that the fine was $40, I've immediately joked "oh, OK so premium parking is $40, nice."
Although, given this is in an area where streetside parking can be $20-$30 for a couple of hours...
Although, given this is in an area where streetside parking can be $20-$30 for a couple of hours...
Counter to Freakononics, my friend’s daycare in SF right now charges parents $2/minute for being late. So it seems to work for them. (Or it works because the cost is relatively high?)
Did they get fewer late pickups? Or do they just make more money?
Any reason to think their baseline is making money? The arithmetic of daycare - market-minimum hourly pay for the workers, vs. legal minimum per-child staffing levels, vs. tight parental budgets - is damned ruthless.
Yeah I'm not sure if $2/minute even covers the potential overtime of a caretaker needing to stay later.
Unless it's some "Mrs. Smith's In-home Childcare" deal, it ain't a carer staying late at $2/minute - it's randomly keeping a business open, at $120/hour. With (good bet) a mandated-minimum staff of 2+. At SF wages. Plus the extra staff churn that randomly having to stay late causes.
Parents wanting ever-so-forgiving cheap daycare need to move an idle grandma into town.
Parents wanting ever-so-forgiving cheap daycare need to move an idle grandma into town.
Lol, counter to freaknomics, the truth(tm)
I wish this model worked for the internet so we were stuck with the current shitty ad model. Charging money is the fastest way to tank engagement with your content.
Free hugs? Yeah probably going to be churchy!
[deleted]
The best way to get rid of junk is not to put it outside your house with “free” on it. It’s to put “$10” on it. Someone will steal it.
Not in my experience. I put a free item on Craigslist once and it was like a feeding frenzy. The first person who emailed me got it, but between their email and them getting to my house to pick it up, I got at least 40 other emails. It was very overwhelming.
Yea, I did the same thing on Craigslist exactly one time before learning my lesson, and got the same feeding frenzy. Now if I want to give something away, I just set it out by the curb with a “free, first come, first serve” note on it, and it’s gone in under 30 minutes.
Ah no. Gumtree free means 10 messages in the next 30 minutes. 1c or higher = ghost town.
I experienced the opposite a few years back.
My wife and I were moving city and needed rid of some perfectly functional appliances and furniture.
We listed it all for free because we needed it gone quick and the cost of taking it with us was too high.
When by the next day we'd had one enquiry from someone who didn't turn up, we changed tactic and switched everything to £1.
Within a day the entire lot was gone, people turning up with copper coins from their piggy bank which we told them to keep.
One fond memory of that was a student looking guy who came to the door for the dining table, I opened the door and greeted him, extending my hand for a hand shake, and he looked confused for a couple of seconds, didn't say a word, then reached in his pocket for the money and held it out. Never had anyone misunderstand an invitation for a handshake before or since.
My wife and I were moving city and needed rid of some perfectly functional appliances and furniture.
We listed it all for free because we needed it gone quick and the cost of taking it with us was too high.
When by the next day we'd had one enquiry from someone who didn't turn up, we changed tactic and switched everything to £1.
Within a day the entire lot was gone, people turning up with copper coins from their piggy bank which we told them to keep.
One fond memory of that was a student looking guy who came to the door for the dining table, I opened the door and greeted him, extending my hand for a hand shake, and he looked confused for a couple of seconds, didn't say a word, then reached in his pocket for the money and held it out. Never had anyone misunderstand an invitation for a handshake before or since.
had a similar experience getting rid of furnitures the owner told me i could dispose of: free brings no eyeballs on it, €10 and people were begging if i could do at €8 :)
Haha, my wife says she gets similar when trying to give things away on apps like Vinted etc. List it free and nothing, put it up there for a few quid and people will do their best to get a "deal".
I wonder if it's a UX thing in these apps that the "free" stuff isn't surfacing but low-priced things are. Perhaps there's just too much free stuff to stand out.
I wonder if it's a UX thing in these apps that the "free" stuff isn't surfacing but low-priced things are. Perhaps there's just too much free stuff to stand out.
We get the opposite on FB marketplace. £0 gets you a load of weirdos, scammers and unreliables, £5 gets you mostly normal people who will pick it up when they say they will.
Lou Wall's comedic musical "Where is bed": https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1jxf2a5/where_is_bed...
I get the whole “people are skeptical of free stuff” thing. But, I suspect in this case it is more that people are “in on the joke” for the premium hugs.
Similarly, people think FOSS software must not be as good as proprietary software because it's free.
Hahaha, so true. There's always good and excellent FOSS. Sticking to open source forever :)
Yeah. Knew a guy who used to say open source is for poor people.
I think the opposite!
This is also known as "Lamborghini Economics"
Higher price => higher demand, seemingly paradoxically
Higher price => higher demand, seemingly paradoxically
Funny how slapping a price tag on something can instantly change how people perceive its value
Free hugs can be well funded by building biometric profiles.
hmmm.. but would private premium hugs attract unexpected customers/demographics?
hmmm.. but would private premium hugs attract unexpected customers/demographics?
I'd personally pay to witness the chargrin
Author notes that there is still a standing offer to answer questions for free "if time allows" but doesn't get any inquiries. I believe this shows that it isn't due to fame or the payment making the author seem more legitimate.
Instead I think that the payment creates the expectation that the inquiry will be answered and when someone expects an answer they are more willing to inquire. When the consultation is free or "time permitting", then it might simply be refused but making the inquiry itself isn't zero cost for the individual and their mental calculus makes it not worth asking. The mental calculus is, "What is the person getting out of this interaction and why would they choose to answer me but not someone else?" When it is financial you can see that you are equal to everyone else and you see exactly what the consultant is getting out of it.
Instead I think that the payment creates the expectation that the inquiry will be answered and when someone expects an answer they are more willing to inquire. When the consultation is free or "time permitting", then it might simply be refused but making the inquiry itself isn't zero cost for the individual and their mental calculus makes it not worth asking. The mental calculus is, "What is the person getting out of this interaction and why would they choose to answer me but not someone else?" When it is financial you can see that you are equal to everyone else and you see exactly what the consultant is getting out of it.
When there's a clear transaction, people feel entitled (in a good way) to your time
Oh no don't worry. They feel entitled also when they're not paying.
Not the same people. I’d expect to get way more out of talking to one of those sets of people than the other
This makes the most sense to me too
It's a similar as described in Freakonomics book.
Daycare was annoyed with parents picking up their kids late. They introduced a fee for this. As a result, late pick ups increased.
Something that was not considered to be socially acceptable, became more acceptable when you put a price tag for it.
Daycare was annoyed with parents picking up their kids late. They introduced a fee for this. As a result, late pick ups increased.
Something that was not considered to be socially acceptable, became more acceptable when you put a price tag for it.
Title is a bit misleading, he became a popular academic/author and the proceedings are for charity. Once you are well known, you can charge for a lot of things, especially if it's for a good cause.
The weird part is that when he was well known, nobody reached out to get the "lot of things". I think it's because a lot of free stuff comes with a catch - free internet for one month, catch is you're stuck on a year long contract. Free consult but the catch is you're in their systems now, agreed to something in the small print, and you now get cold calls to sell you stuff. Free social network but the catch is your data and personal photos are used for marketing and training AI.
But charge $100 and that's it, that's all the strings attached. Straightforward transaction.
But charge $100 and that's it, that's all the strings attached. Straightforward transaction.
That’s how it used to be but there’s a trend of more companies double dipping now and justifying it by saying they would charge MORE if they weren’t allowed to attach all those strings.
The title is ridiculously misleading when people are donating to charity.
It is sort of entertaining to see the gymnastics writers (or LLMs) do to get clicks.
To the contrary, I did not even send this post to my mailing list. It wasn't exactly a throwaway post but it was something more like that. A post I didn't expect anyone to care much about.
Sorry, I shouldn't have presumed. But the prior probability these days is so high. And I don't blame anyone for doing what they need to do get attention, especially if it is putting food on their table.
It's a peculiar turn of events I must admit, but I don't think that having those viewership numbers and an easibly reachable email and not getting contacted is actually common.
I just did a workshop at a small non profit. There were 3 people who came there to meet me to chat about other non related opportunities and projects. We charged a small amount, 5$. It was not advertised or told (not by me or leaked through the topic of the workshop) that I would be there, nor am I famous. They came specifically for me, not the workshop (but did participate in a good way). Not sure what to take away from this, other than that it was really nice!
How did they know you would be there? Did you ask them how they knew?
Oh good one! One through a friend of a friend of a friend. I will ask the others haha.
‘Coincidence’
Sometimes the "signal" we put out is way more visible to the right people than we think
This sounds like the same behaviour from introducing fines for overdue library books or being late picking up children from day-care. It goes from a social olbigation or question ("Do I want to bother the day-care people by arriving late?" / "Do I want to bother this blogger and ask for their time?") to a financial transaction.
I have been on the other end of this. I have a few Spanish tutors I pay ~$10 to chat with for 30m sessions. It is nice creating a dynamic where you can shamelessly talk about yourself without worry, because you are paying.
In the rest of life I usually am the captive audience (kids, wife, etc.) and put my own stuff on the back burner. The author is questioning why people would pay, but it is nice to curate a conversation that is intentionally one-sided, otherwise if you contact him the onus is on you to make it worth his time.
In the rest of life I usually am the captive audience (kids, wife, etc.) and put my own stuff on the back burner. The author is questioning why people would pay, but it is nice to curate a conversation that is intentionally one-sided, otherwise if you contact him the onus is on you to make it worth his time.
My experience with blogging and being easily reachable is that you mostly get people with very specific questions/problems. Not someone who is interested in meeting you.
Maybe try video blogging about fitness or fashion and cosmetics.
If you charge money successfully it signals you are legit enough to get others to pay.
Also when I see a cool person, I think my stuff is not good enough to waste their time, but if they charge for it, then it’s a deal.
Do people pay for knowledge or attention? Because let's be honest, most of the podcasts and books out there already contain more knowledge and wisdom than anyone needs to be successful in any profession.
People pay to go to school where there are teachers that “make you work”.
Some people claim it’s gatekeeping or access to the brand name of the school, but I think it’s more than that.
Most of them know they won’t read the (text)books and learn on their own. Even though the knowledge is available. I guess the money is for the transmission of the knowledge.
Some people claim it’s gatekeeping or access to the brand name of the school, but I think it’s more than that.
Most of them know they won’t read the (text)books and learn on their own. Even though the knowledge is available. I guess the money is for the transmission of the knowledge.
The thing about wisdom is its pretty hard to transmit, there are no quick fixes, so people end up fruitlessly chasing it.
Kind of like how some people will do one get rich quick scheme after another despite none of them working.
Kind of like how some people will do one get rich quick scheme after another despite none of them working.
The corollary of this is that some people lie and claim that people are paying to shortcut to credibility or legitimacy.
And to be clear, I am not talking about this submission (which I didn't read, and from other comments is charity-driven regardless), but this industry is absolutely rife with Fake It Till You Make It people who claim they can barely contain the hordes clamouring to give them money and super high-paying consulting gigs. But then it's coupled with a beg that makes everything previously said look super questionable, yet somehow people buy it.
It's the supermodel girlfriend that lives in Canada.
And to be clear, I am not talking about this submission (which I didn't read, and from other comments is charity-driven regardless), but this industry is absolutely rife with Fake It Till You Make It people who claim they can barely contain the hordes clamouring to give them money and super high-paying consulting gigs. But then it's coupled with a beg that makes everything previously said look super questionable, yet somehow people buy it.
It's the supermodel girlfriend that lives in Canada.
It's like a shortcut to perceived credibility
There's something oddly liberating about making the implicit social cost explicit; it gives both parties a clear structure
I also had this idea when wanting to sell my apartment directly (because real estate agency are a total ripoff), I thought about proposing a price 2k lower and charging 50 per visit, that way only really interested people would show off
Hmm, interesting. I launched a blog a few months' back; one of the reasons was to talk to people about things I care about which, in my case, involves the struggles of launching a bootstrapped startup.
I put a link to my linkedin and a contact form, just for that. No one contacted me. But funnily enough, when I speak to people they often tell me they've read my blog. And I'd like to think that I'm pretty good at giving startup advice - mostly thanks to my failures and a podcast that I've been listening to.
Might end up trying this.
I put a link to my linkedin and a contact form, just for that. No one contacted me. But funnily enough, when I speak to people they often tell me they've read my blog. And I'd like to think that I'm pretty good at giving startup advice - mostly thanks to my failures and a podcast that I've been listening to.
Might end up trying this.
I've found the number of people that read my work vs interact is greater than 100 to 1. Similarly to you I get a lot of feedback IRL. Some people consider me 'prolific' within my small network, even though it feels like there is often no engagement at all. It's not easy to measure the true effect you have!
Yep, it's what I tell myself to keep going ^_^
LLMs made things a lot easier but before them I wished there was a stackoverflow but paid, so you could pay someone for an answer if they happened to have specific information.
You could kind of emulate it by buying stackoverflow upvotes, then placing that as a bounty. Its not exactly money but it made it more comfortable (and successful) than hoping someone answers for free.
You could kind of emulate it by buying stackoverflow upvotes, then placing that as a bounty. Its not exactly money but it made it more comfortable (and successful) than hoping someone answers for free.
SO bounties were kind of useless though weren't they? Timespans far too short for anyone with the right knowledge to notice besides professional bounty hunters, in the end you had to either give the sum to someone who didn't do the job or take the loss.
Wasnt that how Experts Exchange worked?
There was a site called earn.com which charged to email notable people (VCs, etc). They got acquired by coinbase and the site has since shutdown.
[deleted]
https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/say-hi/
and many of my speakers suggested that I should charge for the calls.
Many of my calls involve tech/product advice (often from people with a ton of experience in other areas, e.g. ex FAANG managers, already accomplished founders, designers). Many of the people who message me with concrete questions, asking for my expertise are often already well-off, established and happy to pay.
The thing is:
1. I often get calls from students or people struggling financially 2. I enjoy serendipitous interactions with beautifully weird people
I can probably solve 1. by adding two call lines. But I worry that adding a commercial aspect will prevent 2. from reaching out. I don't live in London any more, and most of my nerdy/artsy/techy/hacker friends live allover the world.
Ah, and:
3. I genuinely love speaking with people in this manner, and personally, I'm getting so much of my Say Hi calls. I just finished a call with a very clever engineer setting their first steps as a solo-founder. They're not "indie hackers", they're people with genuine curiosity, talent and will to help people. It feels amazing to be able to help someone like that, and even better -- to become infected with that enthusiasm!
I am very much aware that I'm rationalising this and perhaps even preventing myself from letting people pay for my work. Whether it's impostor syndrome or the fact that this is such a precious subject to me is a question that I'm trying to answer.