While I think this is great, and am just like (nearly) everyone else in our (nearly) universal disgust with the big content-owning conglomerates, I wonder about the part where he's justifying selling the video for $5, when through traditional channels it would have cost $20.
I feel like it's not uncommon to see stories on hn that basically say we should do the opposite with our products. That is, charge more, because the difference between increased revenue vs. customers lost will still result in a net gain.
Now, obviously Louis CK is a pretty widely-known comedian who already probably has a lot of money, so I don't think he conducted this experiment as a way of becoming that much wealthier, and I applaud him for not taking advantage of his fans. If he had sold it for $20 and billed it as "cutting out the middle man" I'd wager his total revenue probably would have been higher, but he chose to cut his fans a better (for them) deal.
That said, for lesser-known folks with smaller audiences who aren't already wealthy enough to cut their fans some slack, I'd imagine they'd do better charging $20 rather than $5.
I think the arguments you bring up are usually mentioned in the context of subscriptions and salaries. LCK's product is a one-time purchase, so the psychological limit sounds like just about $5, which is a price so low that you don't have to debate with yourself whether you want to buy it or not.
Use Steam videogame and iOS game prices as a corollary instead.
I feel like it's not uncommon to see stories on hn that basically say we should do the opposite with our products. That is, charge more, because the difference between increased revenue vs. customers lost will still result in a net gain.
Now, obviously Louis CK is a pretty widely-known comedian who already probably has a lot of money, so I don't think he conducted this experiment as a way of becoming that much wealthier, and I applaud him for not taking advantage of his fans. If he had sold it for $20 and billed it as "cutting out the middle man" I'd wager his total revenue probably would have been higher, but he chose to cut his fans a better (for them) deal.
That said, for lesser-known folks with smaller audiences who aren't already wealthy enough to cut their fans some slack, I'd imagine they'd do better charging $20 rather than $5.