I really don't mean to sound rude here, but if you can't afford $9/month vs. $5/month, then it seems to me that you should be concerned with things other than some silly diamond membership. Again, sorry for rudeness, I know people can get upset about silly things like money and diamonds.
Price of Membership
Sort:
I hardly think that Chess.com is worried about sustainability beyond one year! At worst, the administrators would begin to cut back on some of the excellent features they offer.
I must agree that $9 per month is a well-nigh negligible cost, considering the wealth of potential chessic education available. Compare this price to that of, for example, cable television, whose educational value is far less.
The problem isn't necessarily that chess.com is $9 a month, or whether it's worth $9 a month -- it is worth every bit of it.
It's really the incremental issue, and about making choices. As a fixed-income retiree, I can afford $9 a month for chess.com (and I spend it gladly). But say there are a couple of other $9 a month or even $5 a month services. Maybe cloud storage for backup, something like Evernote, a game site for different board games, and so on; add up half a dozen of these, and it cuts into the old pension check (or the average wage earner's check) in a significant way.
I choose chess.com and vote with my dollars. But I can't have half a dozen services at that price level. I had to make careful choices.
Perhaps I am a cheapo, but I’d like to have lower level membership options with less features but with a monthly commitment for about $5-10
Well, if it is a time of economic hardship perhaps the owners also are having hard times (they might even be cutting back to using just one yacht and only having one summer home, for example). That would be so sad
It would be nicer to think that we're keeping them in luxury. They might be suffering, too, so I imagine they'd be reluctant to lower their membership rates.
But you raise a good point: in exchange for member committment and loyalty, offering a longer term membership at a modest discounted rate. And they'd not be the first to do so (ICC's 3-year rate is better than their 1-year rate).
Perhaps they're unable to do so? For example: If they lacked confidence in this site being around beyond another year or so, it would be inappropriate to advertise and sell more than one year memberships.
sftac