matgorb wrote: Strongblade wrote:
"What Phil and Co. here have done, brilliantly I will add, is promote shareware and Independant developers. In exchange for their services, Shareware makers that have joined in are getting free promotion and exposure. Advertising and marketing. All things that would normally have extra costs involved."
I cannot agree with that, you can't be that general, MacHeist promoted some Independant developers, those who are willing to compromise on the cost of their software for exposure. For the others, those who do not participate, or refused to, it is not a promotion, because the public sees now their product as too expensive and wait for a price cut (on a smaller scale, a simple look at MacZot comments is a perfect example of how it is happenning)
Actually, I can be that general, and I was. However, my counterpoint was against another generalization as well. DB is stating that *ALL* other Independant Developers have been hurt by this singular, specific situation. They have not. They think that having this kind of promotion (which was 'free' for the developers from the initial financial requirements to set up and maintain. All they had to do in that regard was provide the final product) will hurt them.
Furthermore, you can't say it is free promotion and exposure, it is not, software might be immaterial, but let's pretend it's not for a second, if I give away 6000 iPod a 25% of the normal price for a publicity stunt, I wouldn't say it's free exposure, mainly because I don't make a 75% profit on my normal sales!
Your "free" argument rely on the misconception that 100% of the price of software is profit, it's not.
You seem to mis-understand my reference. We could argue until we are blue in the face about nothing being free. What I failed to do was to stress that the 'free' promotion and advertising was 'free' from the traditional financial or monetary costs of producing, and promoting the products, as that was the service that the Directorate essentially provided.
However, if you percieve a loss in value of the product (or shareware in general) from such a promotion, than you will instinctively add a cost that is monetary in nature based on the perceived value of the promotion versus the perceived value of the product being sold. the question then becomes "Was the overall cost of the promotion worth the overall gain in sales/profit/revenue?"
So far, every developer that has partaken of the MacHeist 'experience' shall we say, has been quite happy with the results. Agreed, not all have spoken, but those that have have seen what they perceive as positive results.
The DB site is a perspective from someone who declined at the opportunity and now is trying to make it seem like it was the correct decision and should be the correct decision for all Independant developers (DBs generalization).
In truth, for his specific situation, the MacHeist scenario may simply not have been a good deal. But that is one specific developer, not the entire general populace like it seems the DB posting is trying to imply.
I was simply trying to show that, when you play with numbers, you can make the outcome look good or bad depending on what you show and what you invent. Both of which were techniques used in the DB post.
In essence, I wanted to be the devil's advocate as I felt the DB post was unjustly trying to accuse the Directorate of scamming people when it used numbers it simply made up to fill the gaps and prove their point. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm sure many have heard the phrase before.
When they make a deal with MacHeist, they "pay" for the exposure by decreasing their price. The money they don't get for the sale is the same money they would have to pay for advertisement. The problem that most people have is what part of those "advertisement cost" goes to MacHesit pocket.
I'm not saying MacHeist is not good marketing, I'm saying good marketing is not necesseraly very morale...
Esseintially correct, but still flawed in execution. Yes, in a way the promotion is not 'free' because they have lowered their price of their product. And assuming the only benefit or gain was a flat fee, yes, there is a disproportionate cost in the end for this promotion. But using purely a monetary figure to describe the benefit leaves out other less-tangible things such as exposure and upgrades profit potential and expanded user base. Brand loyalty for those that have just discovered the product and love it as they love their Macs. These cannot be quantified easily.
Add in the fact that half the numbers on the DB post are mere speculation, one can easily fabricate number to make the Directorate look like greedy bastards or Saints. We can't know those numbers so DB speculated and worked the numbers to their advantage. Just as I did towards the Directorate.
Is marketing moral (not morale)? Not usually. I think marketing is typically trying to convince us to buy stuff we don't need in search of the almighty dollar. It is certainly not something exclusive to a scenario such as MacHeist. But then again, moral marketing rarely involves donations to charity so adding that aspect improves the morals a bit above traditional marketing.
That said, the objectives of MacHeist was to Promote Independant Mac Developers and ultimately increase sales (thus increasing profits). I believe they have accomplished that (as is a fine Macintosh tradition) with style.
And once again, to the Macheist team, I tip my hat on a job well done.