Comment: There is a concept called stewardship

(See in situ)

There is a concept called stewardship

I am sure he looked at several revenue models when it came to launching this Ron Paul Channel and it was quite likely that someone may have advised to do a commercial-supported program that would be able to reach out to the most number of people. Of course this approach is problematic if you do not want blowback from any associations with current and future controversial sponsors to affect not only the message you want to deliver but also unduly affect the budding political career of your son.

The benefit of his current revenue model is that it is a monthly contract so that should his health start to wane or his energies are tied up in another project (i.e. a new book), he can abruptly suspend the channel without much complication from subscription contracts. Also. it is probably not lost on Dr Paul the universal dictum that a good or product that you pay for is more valued than something that you acquired with no effort or financial consideration. For instance, a student working and paying direct tuition is more likely to complete their degree than one who gets free money or subsidized loans for school. So too with a paid subscription; you are more likely value every episode of the RPC than someone else who gets the content for free because you would assign a higher premium on each episode than them.

But I suspect you believe the net proceeds from your subscription fees are being used to fund other projects that Ron Paul finds worthwhile. And you trust his judgment. This is the concept of stewardship. In contrast to involuntary redistribution, stewardship requires a high-level of trust with the personal integrity and wisdom of the steward and the free exchange of the resources to the steward to uses as he sees fit. Whenever people give money to a cause like the American Red Cross for disaster relief, they are trusting that the ARC will exercise good stewardship and use the donated funds for disaster relief in general and leave it to the ARC coordinators to use the money as they see fit in the course of providing disaster relief. Ron Paul then, even if he was making a tidy profit from this channel, the subscribers trust that he would use some of the net proceeds to champion the cause of liberty. And who would believe that after voting on principle for nearly three decades in Washington, he would turn around abandon his principles and waste the money entrusted to him RPC subscribers?

I would agree though that the way RPC is trying to convince people to subscribe is uncannily similar to what his advisers did while email fundraising in the last election. Perhaps their approach needs some reevaluation or maybe some sort of promotion or gift for long-time subscribers as an incentive for future subscribers.