I think Jonas' second question is very valid, and important, and I don't understand @ElianaC 's answer. " To make this happen, we're investing significantly not just in acquiring new learners who may be interested in subscriptions, but in building a user experience that keeps people learning (and subscribing) for a long time." So, what this tells me is that part of the reason the instructor's revenue share will be only 25% is that you are investing in the development of Udemy's platform, but that doesn't make much sense to me, because the fact that we use Udemy's platform is the original reason why our revenue share from organic sales was 50% (and now 37%) in the first place. If our revenue needed to be reduced every time Udemy implements new features, we would be toast (and most likely out of here). This also tells me that when the development of the new experience is finished, the instructors' revenue share will be increased. "In our previous tests with individual consumer subscriptions, we've seen this model produce higher revenue for both instructors and Udemy". Without a clear understanding of how such "model" works, that sentence makes even less sense. The new 37% revenue share from marketplace sales already accounts for any kinds of promotions Udemy will make, even those off-line and by other non-measurable channels like TV and such. That is why organic revenue was reduced from 50%. What additional investments will be made, to compensate for the lower revenue share? As Jonas said, it is more understandable in UFB, but for personal subscriptions it doesn't make much sense with the info we have.
... View more
•
Level 3
