Talk:Subscription business model

Pay-as-you-go?
"A pay-as-you-go subscription where you subscribe to purchase a product periodically."

Is this really the right terminology? I've only ever seen that phrase used for non-subscription services where payment is not automated. That's seemingly implied by the phrasing too, pay as you go. A subscription pays regardless of any going. If anything, that description seems to simply describe a straight subscription model of automatically paying for a product at regular intervals in an ongoing contract. Whereas the only use of pay-as-you-go I've ever seen, is as the name implies, paying only as your need arises (by depleting an allowance/quota) instead of by month or year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.214.145 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * office

keazijoseph 116.68.111.212 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Leasing vehicles another example of paying subscriptions?
Is leasing vehicles another example of paying subscriptions? Gavin Moodie (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (Second relists are generally disfavored WP:RMRELIST. In this instance, it would be a third relist.) (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Subscription business model → Subscription – Clear WP:BROADCONCEPT and primary topic for the term. Subscription is already a redirect here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – Material  Works  16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. Jerium (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we were writing a dictionary, you might be right. But for a encyclopaedia, "Subscription business model" is a much better article title because it encompasses both the subscription, and how organisations that operate subscription schemes do business.  It can therefore hold information that would be irrelevant to an article focussed on the subscription itself. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – Material  Works  16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I see little reason as to why the more complicated "subscription business model" title is better that "subscription." The lead section will need a minor edit after the change, but I see "subscription" as a term more people are familiar with. Additionally, the contents of the article would still match the new title. A move seems appropriate in this case for simplicity. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the original research tag is still appropriate, three and a half years after it was originally placed on the article
Most of the article consists of statements that are not backed by citations. It reads as though someone wrote it based on their understanding of the subscription business model, and later on various editors added bits, sometimes giving citations for the bits they added. It needs to be improved by adding inline citations that support the statements made, and/or replacing statements made with statements based on reliable sources and giving citations to those sources. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Qute a lot of the statements in the 'subscriptions' and 'effects' sections can be found in the blog/article on blackcurve which might be a main missing source? I have added citations to this and and cut some of the text. However, there are problems with close paraphrasing. I think further text could be replaced or removed to avoid this CP problem and perhaps then the original research tag can then be reviewed ? Richarit (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)