 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Developers as sales representatives |
 |
 |
|
|
11-03-05 10:45 PM
Hello all,
In chatting with another developer today, we were talking about the
pricing of FCS (soon to be FMS 2). Not to get into another gripe
session about the pricing, but I realized that as much as anyone,
developers are indeed FCS sales reps.
Here's why. When we develop an application using FCS the client is
either going to have to do one of the following:
1. Buy their own FCS package
2. Use one we supply on a Lease-Our-App basis--both the FCS and
service, and the more clients we have, the more we'll have to buy
3. Hook up with a third-party such as Media Temple for service,
which in turn buys from MM
All of this is relevant to the pricing because the FCS price is based
on (among other things) cost of marketing and cost of sales. By not
factoring in the FREE marketing and sales the developers add to the
overall marketing/sales costs, I think that MM may have missed a
crucial bottom-line issue.
If one figures it takes X sales call, and X marketing costs to sell
one FCS packages to a single corporate customer, the pricing may make
a lot of sense. However, without good apps, especially those that are
made to spec, not too many sales are going to be made even if PT
Barnum is making the pitch. We all want MM to prosper financially,
and we want the same for ourselves. With the current pricing strategy
a lot of the middle market and small business market gets ignored --
it is lost. However, since they are not a target market for MM
doesn't mean they cannot be for developers, and in my case at least,
are. If we could better afford FCS packages, so could our clients. At
the same time, the market would expand without a dime coming out of
MM's marketing/sales costs.
To this end, I am hoping that the new pricing model will quit
charging for BW (which we end up being double-billed for) and provide
more options for number of connections that we can work with on a
sliding scale and keep playing the role of sales reps for MM.
Cheers,
Bill
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
RE: Developers as sales representatives |
 |
 |
|
|
11-03-05 10:45 PM
Well said, plus I want to be on commission, backdated for 2 years ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-
> bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Bi
ll Sanders
> Sent: 03 November 2005 20:47
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: [FlashComm] Developers as sales representatives
>
> Hello all,
>
> In chatting with another developer today, we were talking about the
> pricing of FCS (soon to be FMS 2). Not to get into another gripe
> session about the pricing, but I realized that as much as anyone,
> developers are indeed FCS sales reps.
>
> Here's why. When we develop an application using FCS the client is
> either going to have to do one of the following:
> 1. Buy their own FCS package
> 2. Use one we supply on a Lease-Our-App basis--both the FCS and
> service, and the more clients we have, the more we'll have to buy
> 3. Hook up with a third-party such as Media Temple for service,
> which in turn buys from MM
>
> All of this is relevant to the pricing because the FCS price is based
> on (among other things) cost of marketing and cost of sales. By not
> factoring in the FREE marketing and sales the developers add to the
> overall marketing/sales costs, I think that MM may have missed a
> crucial bottom-line issue.
>
> If one figures it takes X sales call, and X marketing costs to sell
> one FCS packages to a single corporate customer, the pricing may make
> a lot of sense. However, without good apps, especially those that are
> made to spec, not too many sales are going to be made even if PT
> Barnum is making the pitch. We all want MM to prosper financially,
> and we want the same for ourselves. With the current pricing strategy
> a lot of the middle market and small business market gets ignored --
> it is lost. However, since they are not a target market for MM
> doesn't mean they cannot be for developers, and in my case at least,
> are. If we could better afford FCS packages, so could our clients. At
> the same time, the market would expand without a dime coming out of
> MM's marketing/sales costs.
>
> To this end, I am hoping that the new pricing model will quit
> charging for BW (which we end up being double-billed for) and provide
> more options for number of connections that we can work with on a
> sliding scale and keep playing the role of sales reps for MM.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Developers as sales representatives |
 |
 |
|
|
11-03-05 10:45 PM
The same held true for the Flex market.
Macromedia's response? Price FlexBuilder 2 at a tool level. You don't get
Enterprise Services, but that's ok.
My guess is, either use Red5, or build your own small back-end server using
the Socket class in Flash Player 8.5, just like every did back in Flash 5
with XMLSocket.
There is a need for connected Flash clients as Bill said for small/mid
markets, and hopefully that'll get satiated by Open Source alternatives +
lower priced, lower featured Socket servers much like Fortress & Unity are
now for XML.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Richter" <stefan-fMeCE+ULXElEfu+5ix1nRw@public.gmane.org>
To: "'FlashComm Mailing List'" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@p
ublic.gmane.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] Developers as sales representatives
Well said, plus I want to be on commission, backdated for 2 years ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-
> bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Bi
ll Sanders
> Sent: 03 November 2005 20:47
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: [FlashComm] Developers as sales representatives
>
> Hello all,
>
> In chatting with another developer today, we were talking about the
> pricing of FCS (soon to be FMS 2). Not to get into another gripe
> session about the pricing, but I realized that as much as anyone,
> developers are indeed FCS sales reps.
>
> Here's why. When we develop an application using FCS the client is
> either going to have to do one of the following:
> 1. Buy their own FCS package
> 2. Use one we supply on a Lease-Our-App basis--both the FCS and
> service, and the more clients we have, the more we'll have to buy
> 3. Hook up with a third-party such as Media Temple for service,
> which in turn buys from MM
>
> All of this is relevant to the pricing because the FCS price is based
> on (among other things) cost of marketing and cost of sales. By not
> factoring in the FREE marketing and sales the developers add to the
> overall marketing/sales costs, I think that MM may have missed a
> crucial bottom-line issue.
>
> If one figures it takes X sales call, and X marketing costs to sell
> one FCS packages to a single corporate customer, the pricing may make
> a lot of sense. However, without good apps, especially those that are
> made to spec, not too many sales are going to be made even if PT
> Barnum is making the pitch. We all want MM to prosper financially,
> and we want the same for ourselves. With the current pricing strategy
> a lot of the middle market and small business market gets ignored --
> it is lost. However, since they are not a target market for MM
> doesn't mean they cannot be for developers, and in my case at least,
> are. If we could better afford FCS packages, so could our clients. At
> the same time, the market would expand without a dime coming out of
> MM's marketing/sales costs.
>
> To this end, I am hoping that the new pricing model will quit
> charging for BW (which we end up being double-billed for) and provide
> more options for number of connections that we can work with on a
> sliding scale and keep playing the role of sales reps for MM.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Developers as sales representatives |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Developers as sales representatives |
 |
 |
|
|
11-03-05 10:45 PM
"MM has no monopoly on brain"
This was a good one
FTOUCH-YDxpq3io04c@public.gmane.org wrote:
Bill
This is a valid point which you have raised. However, the price of FCS wi=
ll=20
go down, way down, ONLY when someone develops a similar system to FCS.=20
After all, specifications of Flash are known and MM has no monopoly on br=
ain=20
... so I expect that day to come soon. The current , out of range, price=20
structure makes it inevitable.
David=20
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=09
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. =20
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Developers as sales representatives |
 |
 |
|
|
11-03-05 10:45 PM
David,
Of course competition brings with it better pricing and products.
However, I'm hoping that the pricing will be re-structured for
greater profits for MM.--with our without competition. My point is
that they've got this group of dedicated and talented developers who
basically sell FCS with their services. I've met plenty. God knows
I'm an advocate of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and a big free
enterprise booster with the belief that competition helps progress in
both product and pricing. However, when you have a great product that
is sluggish in sales with no competition to speak of (shades of
LiveMotion) why not take advantage of the developers to help MM
increase their bottom line?
Bill
On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:59 PM, FTOUCH-YDxpq3io04c@public.gmane.org wrote:
> Bill
>
> This is a valid point which you have raised. However, the price of
> FCS will
> go down, way down, ONLY when someone develops a similar system to
> FCS.
>
> After all, specifications of Flash are known and MM has no monopoly
> on brain
> ... so I expect that day to come soon. The current , out of range,
> price
> structure makes it inevitable.
>
> David
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Sponsored Links |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:05 PM. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is OFF
|
|
|
|
Medical and Health forum | Computer Games Reviews | Graphics design forum
|
 |
|
 |
|