本研究旨在探討教育科技公司所面臨的關鍵戰略議題：在服務模式從傳統長期合約轉型為訂閱制的過程中，以不同承諾長度設計的子品牌策略，究竟會如何影響客戶的偏好和訂閱意願？我們以台灣最大的線上英語學習平台之一—Funday為例，深入檢視企業是否有必要開發多樣化的子品牌，以便有效滿足消費者對不同承諾期限的個別需求。

本研究透過對 442 位台灣受訪者進行問卷調查，評估了五種基於不同承諾長度的子品牌方案：傳統高階方案（12 個月訂閱承諾）、極致彈性方案（按月訂閱承諾）、輕便入門方案（6 個月訂閱承諾）、季度學習方案（3 個月訂閱承諾）和超值長期方案（24 個月訂閱承諾）。研究採用行為推理理論（Behavioral Reasoning Theory）為框架，檢視消費者的態度、主觀規範、知覺控制力和影響因素，如何共同形塑其在不同子品牌定位策略下的訂閱意願。

實證結果揭示了不同承諾長度下的客戶偏好模式存在顯著差異。其中，傳統高階方案獲得了最高的訂閱意願和品牌偏好，這項發現挑戰了教育市場中過度依賴「彈性導向」定位策略的傳統認知。與最初的假設相反，高階定位比注重彈性的策略更能有效地提升消費者的知覺控制力，這表明消費者對控制力的感知更多地是源於服務​​的全面性和品質保證，而不僅僅是訂閱承諾的彈性。

市場對於按月付費展現出普遍性的偏好，在不同人口統計群體中，有高達 49.77% 的受訪者傾向選擇每月承諾。這種普遍偏好顛覆了傳統的市場區隔假設，顯示台灣市場對於教育投資的認知發生了根本性的轉變。教育程度被證明是預測承諾偏好的最關鍵因素：受過大學以上教育的受訪者對不同長度的承諾表現出較為平衡的接受度；相較之下，僅受過高中教育的受訪者對季度學習方案展現出極高的偏好，卻完全拒絕選擇超值長期方案。

此研究明確指出，教育科技公司應優先考慮高階彈性混合之策略。以 Funday 為例，該研究建議以高階-彈性之混合策略作為主要訂閱方案，將極致彈性方案作為次要的入門級選擇，並終止長期承諾策略。主因是超值長期方案（24 個月）的表現始終不佳，偏好度僅 1.81%，顯示市場對延長訂閱承諾有根本性的抵觸。本研究透過記錄高階定位如何增強消費者感知控制、影響因素如何隨訂閱期限而變化，以及文化背景如何影響教育科技訂閱意圖，為訂閱制商業模式文獻做出了重要貢獻，並為不斷發展的教育技術領域之戰略決策提供了實證基礎。

This study addresses a critical strategic question for educational technology companies: how do commitment-based subbrand strategies influence customer preferences and subscription intentions during transitions from traditional long-term contracts to subscription-based service models? Focusing on Funday, one of Taiwan's largest online English-learning platforms, this research examines whether companies should develop multiple subbrands to serve different commitment preferences effectively.

Through a comprehensive survey of 442 respondents in Taiwan, the study evaluated five distinct commitment-based subbrand strategies: Traditional Premium Strategy (12-month commitment), Maximum Flexibility Strategy (monthly commitment), Accessibility Strategy (6-month commitment), Structured Learning Strategy (3-month commitment), and Long-term Value Strategy (24-month commitment). Using Behavioral Reasoning Theory as a framework, the research examined how attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, and influence factors shape subscription intentions across these different positioning approaches.

The empirical findings reveal distinct preference patterns across commitment options, with the Traditional Premium Strategy achieving the highest subscription intentions and brand preference, challenging conventional assumptions about accessibility-focused positioning in educational markets. Contrary to initial propositions, premium positioning enhanced perceived control more effectively than flexibility-focused approaches, suggesting that consumers derive control perceptions from service comprehensiveness and quality assurance rather than commitment flexibility alone.

A dominant market preference for monthly flexibility emerged, with 49.77% of respondents preferring monthly commitments across demographic groups. This universal preference transcends traditional market segmentation assumptions and indicates a fundamental shift in how educational investments are conceptualized in Taiwan's market. Education level emerged as the strongest demographic predictor of commitment preferences: college-educated respondents showed balanced acceptance across commitment lengths. In contrast, high school-educated respondents demonstrated dramatically higher quarterly preferences and complete rejection of long-term commitments.

The research provides clear evidence that educational technology companies should prioritize premium-flexibility hybrid strategies. For Funday specifically, the study recommends leading with a Premium-Monthly hybrid as the flagship offering, maintaining Flex strategy as a secondary entry-level option, and discontinuing long-term commitment strategies. The Extended strategy (24-month) consistently underperformed, with only 1.81% preference, indicating fundamental market resistance to extended commitments. This study contributes to subscription business model literature by documenting how premium positioning enhances perceived control, how influence factors vary by commitment length, and how cultural context shapes educational subscription adoption, providing an empirical foundation for strategic decision-making in the evolving educational technology landscape.

Andonova, Y., Nikolova-Alexieva, V., Georgiev, S., & Petrescu, A. G. (2021). Riding the subscription box wave: Understanding the landscape, challenges, and critical success factors of the subscription box industry. Sustainability, 13(23), Article 13135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313135

Baek, E., & Kim, K. K. (2022). An exploratory study of consumers' perceptions of product types and factors affecting purchase intentions in the subscription economy: 99 subscription business cases. Sustainability, 14(10), Article 6161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106161

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1086/666376

Burez, J., & Van den Poel, D. (2006). CRM at a pay-TV company: Using analytical models to reduce customer attrition by targeted marketing for subscription services. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.01.038

Chao, K., Kiermaier, M., Roche, P., & Sane, N. (2017). Subscription myth busters: What it takes to shift to a recurring-revenue model for hardware and software. McKinsey & Company.

Chen, T., Fenyo, K., Yang, S., & Zhang, J. (2018). Thinking inside the subscription box: New research on e-commerce consumers. McKinsey & Company.

Deloitte. (2021). Digital media trends: The subscription economy. Deloitte Insights.

Fosker, M., & Cheung, P. (2020). Pricing and proposition testing in subscription economies. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 19(6), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-020-00259-4

Gladilina, I., Degtev, G., Kochetkov, D., Tretyak, S., Stepanova, A., & Lyailya, R. (2021). Development of user subscription services in e-commerce: Effects on consumer behavior. E3S Web of Conferences, 244, Article 10025. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202124410025

Horng, S. M. (2012). A study of the factors influencing users' decisions to pay for Web 2.0 subscription services. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8924–8933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.024

Kim, J., Park, J., & Glovinsky, P. L. (2020). The purchase motivations and continuous use intention of online subscription services. Fashion and Textiles, 7(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-020-00208-z

Kowalkowski, C., & Ulaga, W. (2024). Subscription offers in business-to-business markets: Conceptualization, taxonomy, and framework for growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 116, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.10.006

Kuusisto, M. (2018). Consumer preferences in adopting product-service systems with a subscription revenue model: A focus group study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 902–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235

Lah, T., & Wood, J. L. (2016). Technology-as-a-Service playbook: How to grow a profitable subscription business. Point B Inc.

Li, A. (2021). Converting free users to paid subscribers in the SaaS context: The impact of marketing touchpoints, message content, and usage. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.07.001

Mäntymäki, M., Baiyere, A., & Salmela, H. (2019). What drives the decision to subscribe to a premium in freemium services? A consumer value-based view of the differences between upgrading to and staying with the premium. Information Systems Journal, 29(6), 1340–1370. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12254

Pauwels, K., & Weiss, A. (2007). Moving from free to fee: How online firms market to successfully change their business model. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.3.14

Punj, G. (2013). The relationship between consumer characteristics and willingness to pay for general online content: Implications for content providers considering subscription-based business models. Marketing Letters, 24(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9233-4

Ramkumar, B., & Woo, H. (2018). Modeling consumers' intention to use fashion and beauty subscription-based online services (SOS). Fashion and Textiles, 5(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-018-0137-1

Sharma, Y., & Sijariya, R. (2023). Uncovering the trends and developments in subscription business models through bibliometric analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30(4), 1234–1259. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2022-0204

Statista. (2017). Average churn rate of subscription businesses worldwide as of 2017, by industry. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/816735/customer-churn-rate-by-industry-us/

Tzuo, T., & Weisert, G. (2018). Subscribed: Why the subscription model will be your company's future—and what to do about it. Portfolio.

Wang, C. L., Zhang, Y., Ye, L. R., & Nguyen, D. D. (2006). Subscription to fee-based online services: What makes consumers pay for online content? Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(4), 304–311.

Wartburg, I. (2009). Pricing and consumer behavior in the wireless telecommunications industry [Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management].

Zuora. (2020). Subscription economy index: A decade of transformation. Zuora Inc.