Coming in late, a few thoughts:
I am most in line with Dragan, doubting that you can extrapolate cash flows from previous model / non-paying customers, as the pricing will change behaviour.

As most threads evoke answers, perhaps only counting threads that receive at least 1 answer should be counted. Benefit on the asking side: no cost is incurred if no one tries to answer. Benefit on the answering side: with the effort of answering technical questions we help in a more "countable" way.

For Chatter, it should be either free or answers should be counted as well (perhaps dividing the count of msgs by 100 or more in relation to starting a technical thread). Perhaps Chatter would be damped too much, but my very personal take is that at least 20% answers not written would be a benefit. Hard to forecast.

Personally I am not offended by the current level (style and frequency) of "marketing" posts seen sometimes when a vendor has reached a new milestone or created a new product at the information level usually found here. Marking such posts as "marketing", giving a filter option for Dragan and others with similar allergy level should be doable. The "read" counter should inform originator how often his marketing post was downloaded and such a model should be worth some hightened price: between 3x or 12x the price of a technical thread start. A special link on the signature line of "normal" answers from vendors having payed to a list of their marketing posts might sweeten the deal for them even more at the cost of probably minimal coding for you and ease the path if Dragan wanted to look something up in a marketing blurb ;-))

Kevins idea of free linking to an interesting article clearly has merit (as long it is not used to circumvent the cost of a marketing post)

Seeing pros and cons for a points system,but - if used at all - only as a refinement after new model has been in effect and found to be working.

>Among many upcoming services, including an announcement soon, there would probably be a major shift in a current pricing model that we started to look at. The goal is to leverage that with upcoming services and also to respond to actual member's needs that we have seen over the years.
>
>Presently, the subscription provides full access to the site. Among many features, the search and the ability to enhance the account setup seems to be the most attractive features of the subscription.
>
>Over the years, we collected some related feedback:
>
>1. I come here to help so I rarely do not create a new thread, so why should I pay to get full access?
>
>2. Yes, the site provides pretty much or at least all features other related sites do, but sometimes, I end up in a place that I would need to upgrade my account to the subscription level. Even if I do not need that option, it is still popping up.
>
>3. I pay 129.95$ a year. Sometimes, this greatly worths it as I post about 40 questions in a year or maybe I only post one but the help I receive on that one, by itself, justifies the cost of the subscription.
>
>4. I pay 129.95$ a year. However, in the last year, I didn't use it that much.
>
>5. With or without a subscription, we understand you have to break apart some options, such as the account setup, and this can be somewhat difficult sometimes to find where an option is.
>
>6. I come from a non industrial country, so 129.95$ is a lot of money for us, even if that is in CAD
>
>Resolving all that is somewhat difficult and requires a lot of thinking. But, here is what we thought would worth thinking about.
>
>We are looking at this:
>
>1. Full access to everyone
>
>2. Quota restrictions would be in place but would only apply on "Creating a new message", a new thread, NOT WHEN REPLING TO A MESSAGE, based on a 30-day period, such as being allowed to create up to 5 new messages (new threads) per 30 days
>
>3. The only option users could be related to a payment would then be when going over the quota when "Creating a new message" such as a small payment of 3.95$ or 5.95$ from the 6th message and up if within the 30-day period
>
>Current problematic:
>
>1. Potential members are being driven away just by the fact knowing there is a subscription somewhere, even if they can work ok on the site, and probably more than anywhere else, just knowing there is a subscription sheds some darkness into their view of the site
>
>2. Those who help others a lot, all the time or pretty much, do not have a full access if they are subscribers
>
>3. We lost a member recently who replied to a lot of messages by helping others. But, he then got a negative view of the site as he tried to do a search and I believe he went away. By looking at his stats, I believe he almost never created a new thread. So, he felt somewhat concerned by the current structure and we can understand why.
>
>4. Members report that the breakup of account setup options is somewhat, sometimes, difficult to follow, and it is something difficult to simplify because we have presently options that are offered to everyone and some others that relate to a subscription
>
>Advantages:
>
>1. Everyone would have full access
>
>2. Those who help others a lot, where pretty much all there messages are replies, would basically never be related to the quota
>
>3. Those who "Create new messages", new threads, once in a while would also probably never be related to the quota unless they would suddenly create 10 new threads in one single day, for example
>
>4. Those who "Create new messages", a lot, would only be related to the quota when reaching more than 5 new threads within a 30-day period
>
>5. For those who would be subjected to point 4, they would only pay on the quota, thus not having to pay 129.95$ a year and not knowing if it would be justified or not. Instead, they would pay as they go (when quota reached only and only if within 30-day period), a few dollars only, for a question that can or usually answered pretty fast by other regular contributors and that IMHO would still worths a few dollars
>
>6. The new model would provide more to current subscribers as per the ROI
>
>7. The new model would then allow someone from a non industrial country to be in a better position to afford to pay a few dollars CAD instead of 129.95$, which is too much presently when converted into their local currency, but again, only if the quota would be reached
>
>8. All this would remain in CAD, thus much less when comparing to US currency
>
>9. The interface would be simplified, becoming the same for everyone, and would be easier to use
>
>10. The only option which would be related to a payment, would be done directly when creating the message by the addition of the credit card information field in the "Create a new message" form, when the quota would be reached
>
>11. The model would then be based on something users are already used to such as Kijiji, where you pay only if you post a certain number of ads which would go over the quota within a certain period
>
>Current subscribers:
>
>1. Current subscribers would benefit of an extra 12 months, if they would have a subscription at the time we would adopt such a model.
>
>It is not perfect. But, that would be much better than what we have presently. Times have changed. So, we need to adapt a little bit.
>
>We thought we would share some of those ideas with you so you can comment on this. Let us know what you think and your feedback from the over the years experience on the site as to related items mentioned in my message.
>
>Keep in mind, as you know, this is not a charity Web site. It is commercial and that is the reason is succeeded to run for over 20 years now, making it one of the oldest product on the Internet, a pionner in its domain. So, we have to continue to relate the product to various sources of revenues. We believe adjustments are required in the subscription model. We are trying to adopt something that will resolve a few actual issues. Yes, there are sponsorships but this does not apply all the time to all Web sites. There are also Web sites which run on billions such as Google and Facebook, which can offer everything for free. But, lower end sites, such as Kijiji and other selling sites, auction sites, etc., have adopted an approach like that. For now, this is one we forsee as being potentially applicable. Assuming we would have had to restart the site from day 1, we would have probably adopted such model right away. But, as we have one right now which has been used for years, we believe your feedback would be greatly appreciated.