two extremes of motivatability


#21

On 19/09/14 01:41, Daniel Reeves wrote:
[snip]

One thing I wanted to ask you more about, Tom: why would it feel to
you like cannibalizing our brand if we made basic things premium?

For me at least, the sales pitch for Beeminder is hugely refreshing:
it’s very clear up front about what the concept is, and this is really
nicely reinforced by things like the force majeure clause and the
"exquisitely fair" premium sub slider. The values expressed by this are
something like “fair”, “rational”, and “honest” (though not, note,
“cheap” or “free”). It feels, in short, like the kind of company who I’m
enthusiastic about giving money to.

In particular, I’m thrilled that Beeminder doesn’t feel like another
slightly scuzzy SaaS provider attempting to extract my money because I’m
too lazy to cancel, or constantly trying to upsell me into an
unnecessarily high subscription band. It makes a straightforward offer
(QS with commitment contracts) with a fair price (the cost of derailing)
and a straight-up commitment to honesty. This made me not only happy to
commit to its use, but also (eventually) to a lifetime premium sub.

I’m cool with premium for pledgeless, for starting the road at $910, and
for Beekeeper, because those are things that are likely to actually cost
you money! It seems exquisitely fair to have those as premium.

On the other hand, charging for (hypothetically) turning on the “view
rosy line on the graph” bit would feel cheap. Instead of providing an
awesome tool at a fair price, it would be artificially crippling the
basic version to chisel some money out of your public. If the tool is
free, that’s maybe fair enough, but it isn’t: you’re in the enviable
position of having actual revenue from (many of) your basic users. So it
would just feel like a slightly tawdry cash grab, which isn’t really in
line with my perceptions of what your brand values are.

Incidentally, I’ve actually never been quite as comfortable with the
other limb of your expressed premium policy (“too complicated”) as it
seems a bit of a cop-out, though the fact that people will accidentally
rename their graphs and break things will probably cause enough of a
support demand to justify it.

I think my perception of your values is probably fairly widely held. My
reaction to it probably isn’t: plenty of people seem to have no problem
with business models selling configuration bits or supernumerary
foozles. Hell, if Microsoft had a proposition as good as Beeminder, then
I’m sure it’d get plenty of business.

On the other hand, I doubt I’m the only one – and you haven’t set your
stall out as a nickel-and-diming company. If you start looking more like
one (intentionally or not) then I fear you’d be eating a reputation that
has a lot of long term commercial value. Customer delight and perceived
brand value congruence is pretty hard to obtain.

The
extreme of that would be to make everything premium, like a limited
free trial but then you have to pay to keep using Beeminder. A normal
subscription service, in other words.

That’s a little difficult to square with the "pay up if you derail"
sting which is at the core of why Beeminder is great, but you could
probably do something with the pledges-towards-subs which would make
that work (though you’d have to be careful not to devalue the sting by
simply giving you your cash back as a subscription credit, of course…)

In many ways it’d actually feel more honest than a weird hybrid where it
looks like the price is x ($derail) but once you’ve used it for a bit
you realise you actually need (say) the retroratchet feature to be able
to beemind effectively and you’re stuck with the option of either
abandoning your time investment in the system or forking out an extra $y/mo.

The biggest argument against
that is that we’ve made a big deal out of the “if you never go off
track you’ll never pay anything” feature.

That is quite a large part of it, I think. It’s not so much that it
couldn’t have been set up as a subscription-only service but that it
wasn’t. (Plus the more boring business case argument about whether
raising the barriers to entry would increase revenue, of course, but
that’s got very little to do with brand values). It’s very much about
the honesty and straightforwardness rather than the cash.

tl;dr: Need to be careful to avoid making Beeminder a tawdry
bait-and-switch. But it might just be me.

T


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Akratics Anonymous” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


#22

This is pretty amazing having this community to discuss the future of
Beeminder with. Thank you! Y’all have changed my mind on my initial
inclination to axe infinite freebees and I’m finding the rest of this
persuasive as well.

BREAKING NEWS: We just deployed pledge caps as a default, but everyone
(premium or not) still has the option to set them as high as they
want. (Only Plan Bee or higher can have a pledge cap of $0.) Note that
this is a generalization of the “auto-increase pledges” checkbox we’ve
had until just now.

Thanks especially to Alice Monday for doing the heaving lifting code-wise.

We’re hopeful that this may be the best of all worlds. And hopefully
it won’t be too tedious for people like you, Sean, who’ll want to go
through all their goals bumping the pledge caps to $810 or whatever
amount meets your personal definition of “crazy enough to motivate me
to never let the pledge actually get that high”.

All ideas related to premium plans are going back on the shelf for now
while we digest the latest feedback. So if we can pause all thoughts
on that [1] and get your reaction to these new pledge cap defaults,
that would be awesome…

Thanks again, everyone! Insanely helpful as always.
Danny and Bethany and Alice et al

[1] Again, we’re finding Daniel, Sean, and Tom’s points persuasive.
And in fact they’re mostly just urging us to stick to our original
principles, as outlined in the “No Carrots For You” section of the
announcement of premium plans
[http://blog.beeminder.com/premium#nocarrots]. And I agree that #2
(“things that are confusing to newbees”) is too fuzzy.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Tom Nicholls pmyteh@gmail.com wrote:

On 19/09/14 01:41, Daniel Reeves wrote:
[snip]

One thing I wanted to ask you more about, Tom: why would it feel to
you like cannibalizing our brand if we made basic things premium?

For me at least, the sales pitch for Beeminder is hugely refreshing:
it’s very clear up front about what the concept is, and this is really
nicely reinforced by things like the force majeure clause and the
"exquisitely fair" premium sub slider. The values expressed by this are
something like “fair”, “rational”, and “honest” (though not, note,
“cheap” or “free”). It feels, in short, like the kind of company who I’m
enthusiastic about giving money to.

In particular, I’m thrilled that Beeminder doesn’t feel like another
slightly scuzzy SaaS provider attempting to extract my money because I’m
too lazy to cancel, or constantly trying to upsell me into an
unnecessarily high subscription band. It makes a straightforward offer
(QS with commitment contracts) with a fair price (the cost of derailing)
and a straight-up commitment to honesty. This made me not only happy to
commit to its use, but also (eventually) to a lifetime premium sub.

I’m cool with premium for pledgeless, for starting the road at $910, and
for Beekeeper, because those are things that are likely to actually cost
you money! It seems exquisitely fair to have those as premium.

On the other hand, charging for (hypothetically) turning on the “view
rosy line on the graph” bit would feel cheap. Instead of providing an
awesome tool at a fair price, it would be artificially crippling the
basic version to chisel some money out of your public. If the tool is
free, that’s maybe fair enough, but it isn’t: you’re in the enviable
position of having actual revenue from (many of) your basic users. So it
would just feel like a slightly tawdry cash grab, which isn’t really in
line with my perceptions of what your brand values are.

Incidentally, I’ve actually never been quite as comfortable with the
other limb of your expressed premium policy (“too complicated”) as it
seems a bit of a cop-out, though the fact that people will accidentally
rename their graphs and break things will probably cause enough of a
support demand to justify it.

I think my perception of your values is probably fairly widely held. My
reaction to it probably isn’t: plenty of people seem to have no problem
with business models selling configuration bits or supernumerary
foozles. Hell, if Microsoft had a proposition as good as Beeminder, then
I’m sure it’d get plenty of business.

On the other hand, I doubt I’m the only one – and you haven’t set your
stall out as a nickel-and-diming company. If you start looking more like
one (intentionally or not) then I fear you’d be eating a reputation that
has a lot of long term commercial value. Customer delight and perceived
brand value congruence is pretty hard to obtain.

The
extreme of that would be to make everything premium, like a limited
free trial but then you have to pay to keep using Beeminder. A normal
subscription service, in other words.

That’s a little difficult to square with the "pay up if you derail"
sting which is at the core of why Beeminder is great, but you could
probably do something with the pledges-towards-subs which would make
that work (though you’d have to be careful not to devalue the sting by
simply giving you your cash back as a subscription credit, of course…)

In many ways it’d actually feel more honest than a weird hybrid where it
looks like the price is x ($derail) but once you’ve used it for a bit
you realise you actually need (say) the retroratchet feature to be able
to beemind effectively and you’re stuck with the option of either
abandoning your time investment in the system or forking out an extra $y/mo.

The biggest argument against
that is that we’ve made a big deal out of the “if you never go off
track you’ll never pay anything” feature.

That is quite a large part of it, I think. It’s not so much that it
couldn’t have been set up as a subscription-only service but that it
wasn’t. (Plus the more boring business case argument about whether
raising the barriers to entry would increase revenue, of course, but
that’s got very little to do with brand values). It’s very much about
the honesty and straightforwardness rather than the cash.

tl;dr: Need to be careful to avoid making Beeminder a tawdry
bait-and-switch. But it might just be me.

T


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Akratics Anonymous" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://dreev.es – search://"Daniel Reeves"
Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == http://beeminder.com