Optimal pricing of close to zero marginal cost content
With near zero marginal cost, and infinite supply, your prices are going to be decided by entry cost, competition, and what the market will bear. Generally speaking, though, there are no accurate models for getting these kinds of optimal prices in advance - your best bet is to test, experiment, and then build a business and market specific model based on what you observe.  Look at the Steam network, as an example. They are in the business of selling 0 marginal cost software (games), in a market with a significant but quickly decreasing entry cost, and with solid competition. Despite being around for years in a mature market, they're still discovering unexpected optimal price points when testing how their customers behave. "It seems this will be very much driven by price discrimination.  If there are some customers who will pay up to $100, sell at that; and if there are others who'll pay $1 sell at that price. For instance you see computer games, which have zero marginal cost of production, sold at ""normal new release"" prices, at premium prices with a special box or doo-dad, and at discount prices once the game is a bit old." "Software or any online service fits this category I suppose.  There are two apps I pay for that are ""free."" Evernote and Pandora.  Evernote is free for 40MB, $45/yr for 500MB/mo transfer. Pandora is free for 40hrs/mo, $36/yr unlimited. When I use a free product and hit the limit it's a sign to me that I value that product and the owners deserve to get paid. To me, both products provide value that's well above the cost they are asking. In this case, both products are annual subscriptions, but offer monthly as well.  You don't mention the type of product you have, the two I listed are similar in billing type, but very difference end uses. The question is - How do you provide value and make your customers want to pay you?  BTW - the ~$40/yr give or take, seems a good price point. Under $50, it feels a fair price to pay for a useful product."
"I can describe the method for determining a price floor, which may help. It starts with looking at the cost of mining. There's a ridiculously small amount of gold in the best ore, so it's measured in tonnes of ore to produce a given ounce of gold. Mines will only operate at a loss for so long, so for any mine which focuses on gold, when the price of gold is below that price for long enough, the mine will cease operation. Since not all mines have the same cost, the supply will not appear as a step function, it will reduce slowly as mines close.  ""Gold Drops Below Cash Cost, Approaches Marginal Production Costs"" offers a marginal cost of production just over $1100. This is not a floor price, as the market can act irrationally at times. It's just a number to consider.  On the demand side, the industrial use (I am thinking gold plating in electronics manufacturing) will serve to provide demand almost regardless of price. When a $100 microprocessor uses say 10 cents worth of gold (at $300/oz) $1500 gold increases the final chip price by 1/2%. The industry is still trying to move away from Gold where they can, but that's a long process.  As far as a ceiling goes, I highly recommend the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds which offers insight on a number of mania that have occurred not just in the past few decades, but over the centuries. At $1500/oz, the value of all the gold in the world is about US$7.5trillion (That's 12 zeros). Given that a portion of it is in jewelry and not available as an investment, it's safe to say that the entire world can only easily bid on about 1/3 of this (as the gold council cites 31% of gold going towards investments each year vs 57% jewelry and 11% industrial) or US$2.5T or so. With total world wealth at US$125T it would take a bit more hysteria to push gold from its current 2% of that value (funny how that number lined up perfectly) to much higher.  Note: I provided a number of links, as it's too easy to just throw numbers around. See the links and provide more current data if you're so inclined. Data isn't real time." First price isn't artificially maintained at a level. When a refining company signs a contract to buy crude from a supplier, it promises to buy at a certain price with options for increase and decrease due to the fluctuating prices in the market. And it buys crude to build up a certain buffer to supply itself for a certain duration, in case of supply problems. As it had bought oil at a higher price, it would be reluctant to lower the prices even if the current crude it buys is at a lower cost. If it buys oil from the open market, it has no other option than to pass on the hike on to the consumers, so a more intense fluctuation in the prices of oil at the point, where you buy it. Some airlines used hedging to take care of the spurts in the price of oil, to mantian their operating margins.  And moreover refining and distribution is a very low margin business, so the company has an incentive to sell at a higher cost if required. "It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using ""no margin"". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time." An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date.  The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike.  Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out.  As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected. This article may be a good place to start [Introduction to Smart Pricing: How Google, Priceline, and Leading Businesses Use Pricing Innovation for Profitability](http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1569334)   It gives a brief overview of three pricing strategies, cost plus, competition based pricing and consumer based pricing.  **Edit** -This may also be helpful [Social Science Research Network](http://www.ssrn.com/en/) Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited. "I highly recommend http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ Professor Damodaran. He's written some of the best valuation books in existence (my favorite, simply ""Investment Valuation""). On his website you'll find a big pile of spreadsheets, that are models for working the various approaches to valuing a company.  Also, he teaches an MBA-level valuation course at Stern School of Business in NYC. And he videotapes it and you can watch it for free. Very smart, kind, generous man." "Something kind of like that, but geared more towards professional content providers.  For example, if you were going to do everything with an automated plug-in - the plug-in would open up ""premium content"" on sites that support it (e.g. New Yorker, etc.) and would be used by a ring of professional content publishers.  I mean, this is something that I haven't fully thought out yet - it's not even close to my industry - but it'd be nice from an end-user perspective to get access to all the premium sites on the internet, not by paying individual subscription fees, but by being 'metered' when I'm on those sites so my billing is an accurate indicator of my interest level in their content.   I mean, this opens up all kinds of problems of course - like how it would be easier to just set up an API to rapidly download all the content into an offline browser/format - but we're just brainstorming right now."