Bringing clarification to something I recently wrote
Hi all,
Sometimes when I write or speak, I run into a problem. I make the assumption that the audience to whom I am presenting will actually understand not only the subject matter at hand, but also my presentation style, which sometimes tends to be proverbial in nature. I noticed that twice recently, my assumption was incorrect, and people came away from my communications with more confusion, than information.
The first recent time was at the ILDA meeting, where I presented a completely hypothetical situation involving an ILDA member who makes fog machines who creates a new fog machine innovation for the world that they call the "Hazer Playtricks". I presented this completely hypothetical situation in a manor very much like that of Penn & Teller. Within my ILDA presentation, I made the assumption that everyone in the room was familiar with the laser marketplace, all of the relevant players, name brands, company reputations, and -- oh by the way -- that everyone had actually seen Penn & Teller at least once in their lives. Well, it turns out that perhaps a lot of people didn't really "get" the point I was trying to make, partially because it turns out that 75% of the people there don't even know who Penn & Teller are...
(For the uninitiated, you should check out this video, among many others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc)
By the way, this whole "Hazer Playtricks" topic is a point for another discussion, because the second, and more important, and more recent topic is when I recently wrote that:
Quote:
Recently there have been other companies come out with new versions of their software -- new versions for which they want you to pay more money. We will be watching the marketplace very closely to see if this is deemed to be acceptable, and if it is, then we might use this approach too. Certainly if people actually had to pay money each time we added a program, a show or updated the software, we would be making a lot more money. So, it will be interesting for us, to see if the marketplace finds the practice of charging for updates acceptable.
Once again, I made the assumption that all of the readers are completely familiar with all products in the marketplace, the recent behaviors on the part of companies, and everything else. And once again, it turns out that this must not be a valid assumption, because some people didn’t seem to “get” my overall points. In fact, it seems that my comments were taken a bit out of context and bled over onto other forums. So to help people understand this, I will try to exit from my proverbial writing style, and break this down for people, point by point.
The first point I was trying to make here is that -- recently, within this overall market, we have seen a few companies come out with new versions of their software, and now they want you to pay for the software update. Not only that, but they have vowed not to support the older versions of the software.
The second point is that -- at Pangolin, we have been using the term "free updates" since 1986. This is not only a term we throw around like water -- this is something we actually mean, and we have actually backed them up with real action. In the case of the LD2000 system, we have 10 years where people can see that we have offered free updates. And not only bug fixes, but real meaningful additions, like, for example, Asteroids, the Winamp plugin, LC-Flash, LC-4D and the list goes on and on. As we developed these things, we added them to the package for free.
The third point is that -- it costs Pangolin money to do these things. We had to work directly with Justin Frankel to make the Winamp plugin, and this involved trade deals, flights to meet with him, a lot of time, etc. We had to (and still have to) pay Valery's salary to write LC-Flash and Cathleen's salary to work on LC-4D, etc. etc. and so on. We spend the money, and then we pass the results onto our users for free.
Since we have seen companies offering updated software, but holding their hand out for more money, it appears as though Pangolin is the only company who is offering free updates. Not only talking about it, but actually doing it.
So my overall point is this. We are going to be watching the marketplace (that means, the people who actually buy software). And we are going to be watching their behavior (it means, how they spend their money). The marketplace will speak very loudly, and will make one of a few statements:
1. The markeplace will decide to buy Pangolin software, not only because we offer great products, but also because we offer free updates – and not only talk about it, but actually do it.
2. The marketplace will exhibit apathy -- that people really don't care much about "free updates", and will just spend their money willy-nilly, on any company that appears to have the latest thing.
Which brings me to my final point. If we see that the marketplace really does not value free updates, then we MAY take the same tact that other companies seem to be getting away with, and we will simply introduce a "new version" of our product about every year, and hold our hands out for more money. WE WON'T DO THIS ON LD2000 OR THE FB3 -- BUT ON FUTURE PRODUCTS.
Basically, if the marketplace demonstrates to us, that it really doesn't value free updates, then why the heck is Pangolin acting so special and offering free updates? What makes us think we are so special, that we have to do something that nobody else in the entire world is doing (oops, there I go again speaking proverbially...). After all, if we did what "the other guys" are doing, we'd make a whole lot more money, and we'd be able to afford those long, stretched pink hummers with no problem.
So I hope this clarifies things for people. I WAS NOT saying that we would change our policy of free updates FOR THE LD2000 SERIES OR FOR THE FB3!! What I was saying is -- if the marketplace exhibits apathy (or, dare I say, stupidity?) then what the heck are we doing paying the top people in this industry salaries, just to give it away for free, if other companies are making money hand over fist?
Please let me know if I can clarify this further.
Best regards,
William Benner
