View Full Version : [FQuest Announce] New Package Names & New Packages!
Over the past month FutureQuest added Extra POP Email Accounts (http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15450), increased the package included Extra FTP Accounts (http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15502), raised the Package Bandwidth Allocations (http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15552), gave additional Disk Space to all of the Full Packages (http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15631), and doubled the block size of Extra Disk Space (http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15631). This resulted in virtually all new packages which obviously required new names to go along with their new looks. I KNOW some of you saw this coming early on and we thank those who offered up ideas for their assist ;) Not only are the packages receiving new names but we have added two new packages to the lineup. As if this were not enough to talk about, the additional packages have caused the Reseller Points to be increased in some areas.
So let's get started on the details!
:QTsanta: New Packages
:trans: Voyager Package
All of the recent updates further separated the "Gold Package" from the "Platinum Package" which have always had a gap that needed to be filled. We are now filling that gap with the brand new Voyager Package!
The Voyager Package (which is displayed in more detail on the FutureQuest Packages & Pricing Page (http://www.FutureQuest.net/Services/Packages/)) includes 450 MB of Disk Space, 24 GB of Bandwidth, 65 POP Email Accounts, 6 FTP Accounts, 6 MySQL Databases and of course ALL of the features FutureQuest proudly includes with each of its Full Packages. The Voyager Package fills the gap for those that want to move from the [previously known as] "Gold Package" level to the [previously known as] "Platinum Package" level as a booster step directly in between.
:rasberry: High-Capacity Package (HC):
The High-Capacity package isn't really new because we have been hosting a handful of Site Owners on the HC Server for a while now, however, what is new is that FutureQuest is opening up the HC to the public at large. Previously it was only provided to established FutureQuest Site Owners in need of something more than the Community Servers could provide for them. In addition to making the HC public we also lowered the monthly cost of the HC to $199 per month and increased the FTP allocations to 10 (those that were paying more have received notice that their price has been decreased via email).
The HC Package includes 1,000 MB of Disk Space, 50 GB of Bandwidth, 10 FTP Accounts, 150 Email Accounts, MySQL Access, etc etc etc. HC Servers are built for web sites that require more bandwidth and disk space than what can be successfully delivered via the Community Servers. Please visit http://www.FutureQuest.net/Services/HC/ for more details about the High-Capacity Solution.
:QTidea: New Package Names
To be on a FutureQuest is to travel forward and there are many types of travelers as well as trip starting points, destinations, and distances for each of them. The new package names begin with the vision, move forward with those travelers we are most familiar with and end with the traveler that begins to move beyond the Shared Servers, err I mean earthly travels, and into the worlds beyond (such as High-Capacity and Managed QuestServers) and thus the new package names have been chosen.
The easiest way to become familiar with the new package names, noting the package features have not changed (well not since our last announcement anyway ;) ) would be to visit FutureQuest's Packages Page (http://www.FutureQuest.net/Services/Packages/), however, to get you started here's the rundown...
The Starter shall now be known as the Visionary
The Basic shall now be known as the Pioneer
The Silver shall now be known as the Prospector
The Gold shall now be known as the Trailblazer
The ummm, err, well, we now call it the Voyager
The Platinum shall now be known as the Odyssey
We hope, given time to adjust, you will find the new names both easy to remember and unique with a style that better fits with the FutureQuest Theme as well as bringing the package names together in more unified format.
We have also been busy making MANY web site and software updates to reflect the new names. You'll notice this in the obvious places such as the Packages Page and your invoices as well as the less obvious places such as FAQs and other misc areas. However, we are also aware that the old names may continue to float around in places such as older forum posts (which wont be updated), web sites not within our control, and on our own web site where we may have missed something. If you advertise FutureQuest's Packages on your web site we would certainly appreciate your making the update. If you notice an old package name somewhere on our own web site, please do let us know so that we may update it accordingly as well. Thanks ;)
We of course hope you find the new Voyager Package useful in your travels and that all of the new package names, Visionary, Pioneer, Prospector, Trailblazer, Voyager and Odyssey, are able to quickly become easy for you to associate accordingly with your own package(s) as well as how they relate to each other.
:QTmoney: Reseller Point Changes
With the insertion of the Voyager Package between the Trailblazer (gold) and Odyssey (platinum) and the addition the High-Capacity Solution, FutureQuest has adjusted the points that are allocated to these packages. The new point chart may be viewed by visiting:
http://www.FutureQuest.net/Services/Resellers/
The Point Changes to make note of are:
The Odyssey (platinum) Package used to be worth 5 Points for Annual and 4 Points for Monthly. The Odyssey Package is now worth 5 Points for Monthly and 6 Points for Annual.
The Voyager Package now takes over the old platinum spot and is worth 4 Points for Monthly and 5 Points for Annual.
The High-Capacity Package will also receive points (though it will not receive Reseller Discounts) and is now worth 6 Points for Monthly and 7 Points for Annual.
All of us behind the scenes at FutureQuest thank you for your continued support as we grow and improve in hopes of servicing you long into the future!
Deb
- We're style'n now :QTcool:
Bradley
11-03-2003, 04:14 AM
Awesome Deb & gang!
Keep up the good work! :P 8}
Randall
11-03-2003, 04:36 AM
Oh yeah -- with all hullabaloo over the package upgrades, I forgot all about the new names. :)
With such evocative monikers, methinks Arthur should be cooking up some icons/illustrations that fit the travelling theme. Kinda hard to visualize a Basic Package, but Pioneers and the like lend themselves to it very well.
Randall
Syneryder
11-03-2003, 05:04 AM
But... but.... it isn't Christmas yet? And you're introducing more new stuff already? But... ??
Wowee. Either somebody has been messing with Santa's calendar, or Santa must have something nifty planned for Christmas this year. I'm inclined to think it's the former - those darn elves, never can trust them with anything ;)
- Kohan
Independent software developer / sometime musician / and now a Pioneer!
methinks Arthur should be cooking up some icons/illustrations that fit the travelling theme. Oh fer sure! - Kohan
Independent software developer / sometime musician / and now a Pioneer! Don't try to understand 'em
Just ride through and brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide (http://www.sintones.com/Rawhide-Ghost%20Riders.mp3) I'm inclined to think it's the former It's going to be a peaceful Christmas.... this is one business where "noneventful" can be a good thing... let's hope anyway ;) those darn elves, never can trust them with anything This is true ;)
Deb
- Monday Monday so good to me
Monday mornin' it was all I hoped it would be
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 05:23 AM
I hate to be a dissenting voice, but these new names can be nothing but a source of confusion.
The old names, while not especially glamourous, had the virtue of expressing the hierarchy of plans pretty clearly. "Starter" is pretty obvious, and the ranking of silver / gold / platinum is used in hundreds, if not thousands, of contexts -- especially online. About the only one that was not immediately obvious was "basic," but having a single lost sheep would not be a problem.
Now, however, you have a series of names that carry no intrinsic meaning or content. The only way to know which plan is superior or inferior to any other plan is to consult a table. There is nothing inherently hierarchical about terms such as prospector or voyager or visionary. You have now changed to names that are a meaningless as the size designations at Starbucks. You could just as easily, with equal lack of content, have named the plans after Crayon colors, or fruit trees, or streets in Atlantic City.
I hope it does not develop into an actual marketing problem. I want you guys to be successful, and recommend you every chance I get.
We did struggle with the issue of size, however coming up with 6 consecutive names proved difficult... at the same time the existing names were not unified in type..e.g. Starter Basic is a different theme from Silver Gold Platinum which also included complications for adding a package such as the Voyager in between. We also do want to step outside the "same ol same ol" perspective...
The names, though not quite as clear where size is concerned do have a meaning that given time begins to make sense and is a bit more unified. We've been working with the new names on the back side for a few weeks now and thanfully can report that, given time, it becomes easier.
A Visionary sees what's ahead, a Pioneer goes for it, a Prospector (Reseller Qualifier and first to receive MySQL) seeks the gold, a Trailblazer makes the path to move forward, a Voyager moves beyond the current lands and crosses the sea and an Odyssey is to travel beyond. Each journey requiring a bit more than the one before it.
And no worries on the "dissenting voice" ;) It's difficult to please everyone with all things..we're just doing our best to make changes that help the overall picture and functionality. In this case, I've seen more and more complaint over the "boringness (is that a word) and lack of creativeness" with the standard names as well as the non unified format that they were shaping into with the additional packages such as when the Starter had been introduced...
Deb
- Change is good... just hard to swallow sometimes...
Good stuff, but I agree with voiceguy. I'll never remember the proper order of the names without checking the chart. Not the end of the world, but I think a truly sequential naming system would have been more intuitive.
Just skimming the thread (limited to use of one eye, additionally), so maybe I missed it, but is it my imagination or did the old Starter package gain reseller discount status with these changes? Or was it that it always received 1 point for an annual account but didn't get a discounted rate?
Dan
did the old Starter package gain reseller discount status with these changes? Or was it that it always received 1 point for an annual account but didn't get a discounted rate? It always received 1 point for the annual plan but did not/does not receive a discounted rate... Your one eye is doing just fine ;)
Deb
- Distributing charts :P
John Kennett
11-03-2003, 06:06 AM
I am really impressed with the way that FutureQuest continues to develop the packages, particularly the way you continually give more for less. As costs fall there must be a big temptation to just take more for yourselves!
Why do you continually refer to gigabytes per month as "bandwidth" though, when you mean "data transfer"? I know that it's a common use of the term, but I'm surprised to see it used this way here -- as a clueful host you certainly know the difference! ;)
John
PS I'm not sure about the new package names either, but I dare say we'll get used to them . . .
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 06:14 AM
I am sure that somewhere within Starbucks there is a purported rationale explaining a claimed ordinality of "Tall," "Grande," and "Venti." Horsefeathers. The only way to determine what these terms mean is to read the price chart on the wall.
As someone who spends a significant amount of time with marketing and communications issues, I run into this kind of thing all the time. People get tired of what they have been using, even though it has been working and has by no means worn itself out with the public. Worse yet, they decide they want to be "creative" and "different," wanting to "think outside the box" or some such thing.
Sorry, but no. Clarity is the key. Lack of clarity is the enemy. Lack of clarity results in confusion, which results in hesitancy. Hesitancy results in lost sales. It's that simple.
I subscribe completely to the "gun to the head" philosophy of John Carlton, a very accomplished copywriter. This approach requires that you examine each feature of what you are doing and ask yourself: "If there were a gun to my head, which will go off unless this project is successful, would I choose these words?" I think I can say with confidence that if someone's life depended on the clarity of understanding these programs, words like "pioneer" and "trailblazer" would not be chosen. Why risk it? They would have been called "Level 1" and "Level 2" and so on, or something else equally simple and straightforward.
Look: What's done is done. I just hope it does not create so much confusion as to have a significant impact on your results.
Darian
11-03-2003, 06:18 AM
Great to have new packages, and I have really appreciated the increases, particularly in disk space, for each of them.
However, the names...
I agree with Voiceguy. The names are meaningless at first or second glance (the fact that Deb had to explain them proves that) and sound like a marketing gimmick - I believe that Futurequest's strength is their low-key, professional and quite amazing service, their quiet brilliance. Sticking silly names on the packages detracts from that in my opinion.
Change is not always good. And the suggestion that given time it will become easier seems a little misguided. Unlike the folks at FQ, most people don't spend all day working with these packages. The majority may remember the new names for a day or two but two weeks later when they have to make changes or when resellers talk to their clients, they'll have to relearn the names or constantly be referring to the table.
*Eventually*, after several iterations, perhaps it will become easier, but what about new clients? The names (despite what Deb suggests) do not infer a hierarchy of how feature-full and therefore costly each package is (and that's an English mother tongue speaking, what about non-native English speakers?). It's very easy to sell a 'Starter' package to someone - they feel happy that they're getting the basic, most economic package, but a 'Visionary'? Come on!
I appreciate you have put a great deal of time into the names, but I do hope, should sufficient other FQ users agree, that you would be open to rethinking the issue.
All the best,
Darian
Why do you continually refer to gigabytes per month as "bandwidth" though, when you mean "data transfer"? I know that it's a common use of the term, but I'm surprised to see it used this way here -- as a clueful host you certainly know the difference! Ha! We did update it here (http://www.futurequest.net/Services/Compare/), but I forgot to do so on the packages page (adding a note there now)
<pause>
Bandwidth is in fact used because that is what the majority of clients think of it as and by using the term we create less confusion, and the page has been updated. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
As far as the names go, I again do feel that a change was needed and do understand the concerns. Second place was the Q-100, Q-200, Q300, type ideas however the ability to typo a number, therefore creating a completely false answer to a specific question is great and I wanted to avoid that. With names, typos are less likely to create an incorrect answer even though the typo may look poor. I also wont argue the idea of simplicity...it's a valid argument but again we did decide to choose the "stepping outside the box" concept...as we always have ;) I appreciate you have put a great deal of time into the names, but I do hope, should sufficient other FQ users agree, that you would be open to rethinking the issue. We're always thinking and rethinking...no worries there. And if you would like to make additional suggestions..this thread isn't locked (http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15249) ;)
Deb
- Q-3.5 Plus
farlane
11-03-2003, 06:33 AM
FQ never seems to be content with mere excellence --kudos!
Am I correct in assuming that the High-Capacity Package has no annual discount?
Am I also correct in assuming that the old Silver / Gold / Platinum progression ran up against the limitations of existing precious metals? Too bad, I was kind of looking forward to the "Gold Pressed Latinum" package...
:noddy:
Am I correct in assuming that the High-Capacity Package has no annual discount? Correct, however, it does receive points.... Am I also correct in assuming that the old Silver / Gold / Platinum progression ran up against the limitations of existing precious metals? Too bad, I was kind of looking forward to the "Gold Pressed Latinum" package... Correct again :P We looked at metals and gems and then came to realize that a) after a few they become less familiar and b) the prices change on the open market to a point that sometimes one becomes worth more than the one that used to be worth more than it was the day before %) ...hmmmm
Deb
- 3rd Place Gems: Opal, Pearl, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, Diamond but then again I like Sapphires more than Diamonds..go figure :P
farlane
11-03-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Deb:
Correct, however, it does receive points....
If I have more points than the maximum, can I redeem them for the forthcoming 3 disc DVD of Terra's pithiest server comments??
;)
JoeLeBlanc
11-03-2003, 07:35 AM
Has FutureQuest gone crazy or what? :P Nice Job Guys, lol
Wassercrats
11-03-2003, 07:50 AM
The Starter shall now be known as the Visionary
The Basic shall now be known as the Pioneer
The Silver shall now be known as the Prospector
The Gold shall now be known as the Trailblazer
The ummm, err, well, we now call it the Voyager
The Platinum shall now be known as the OdysseyI think once you came up with those names, you should have allowed comments before making the decision. Maybe we could have stuck closely to that theme while tweeking it for the better. For example, I think it's ok, even if the relative package sizes are less clear than originally, to have packages named (smallest to largest) Visionary, Pioneer, Trailblazer (maybe), and Odyssey. That order kind of makes sence, assuming you remember the names. The other two names make the proper order less clear and Prospector isn't as consistant with the spacey sounding name FutureQuest. Maybe a better six names would be Visionary, Pioneer, Trailblazer, Odyssey, Pinnacle, and one more that I wouldn't want to deprive others from the fun of thinking of.
Darian
11-03-2003, 08:12 AM
We're always thinking and rethinking...no worries there. And if you would like to make additional suggestions..this thread isn't locked
I wouldn't have expected anything less! ;)
I have no immediate alternative suggestion on the names (it's much easier to criticize than to come up with a good idea yourself!), other than to revert back to the precious metals (Darmstadtium Package, anyone?) or indeed the numbering was fine.
However, I would love to have seen in addition to the existing packages a 'My Package' option where the client specifies exactly what they want and are charged accordingly. "You only need 5Mb of diskspace, but you require MySQL? Certainly, sir. That's $5 for the diskspace and $10 for the MySQL. And will the minimum 1 Gb bandwidth be sufficient, or will sir be requiring something a little higher?".
Best,
D.
Originally posted by Darian:
However, I would love to have seen in addition to the existing packages a 'My Package' option where the client specifies exactly what they want and are charged accordingly.
If you do a search on these forums (maybe for something like MySQL) you'll find that the 'my package option' and similar variants have been discussed a number of times and the conculsion is it just doesn't work on shared servers.
farlane
11-03-2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Darian:
However, I would love to have seen in addition to the existing packages a 'My Package' option where the client specifies exactly what they want and are charged accordingly.
A possible variant of this would be a "Package-alyzer" (you can see that the world of marketing isn't missing me too much) where you select:
number of email boxes
number of ftp accounts
disk space
bandwidth
mysql yes/no
and receive the FQ package that fits your needs AND the services priced as add-ons to the basic package. My suspicion is that in most cases, the FQ package would be the best deal, but a select it approach might make it easier for people to find what the package that suits them.
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 08:50 AM
These are fine names, I like them. The objections raised by voiceguy were discussed at length in an earlier thread, so I can only assume that the new names were chosen in light of the possible confusion they may cause for the language impaired.
Since there are so many variables affecting new business the number of sales lost because of confusion, or gained because of the appeal of the new names will never be known.
But it is a natural filter, weeding out potential clients that are easily confused and would bring their confusion with them as clients. (This is where we see the marketing people wince.)
I don't think I'll have any trouble remembering the names or their sequence. But then I've already decided on a Future Quest.
Andi
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 09:12 AM
A possible variant of this would be a "Package-alyzer" I've thought of this and it does seem to be an appealing idea.
But it would mean a fundamental change in the business model. Terra has explained in earlier threads (which may be searchable) why metered usage wouldn't work, but a package-alyzer is something different. The only problem I would anticipate would be people playing with it incessantly trying to find its weakness, or maybe someone entering several unreasonable packages and then leaving in frustration as they are rejected.
It would probably work best with established (high end) accounts that were willing to submit packages until one "computes." But then truly "high-end" clients usually already know that everything is negotiable beyond a certain point because the alternative becomes an in-house data center.
Tinkering with something that is working well is best left for times when business is so brisk that a new model cannot possibly fail or cause so many problems as to be a distraction.
I think the package-alyzer will probably emerge somewhere, sometime. Someone will try it... I'll be interested to watch how it works and competes. Though my own needs will likely always fit into an FQ package.
Andi
hobbes
11-03-2003, 09:51 AM
Congrats on not being content with the past and continuing to seek the future FQ!
mromero
11-03-2003, 11:05 AM
I too think the former naming convention was more intuitive and easier to visualise, however....
I recall the furor raised by many commentators, especially John C. Dvorak when INTEL decided to name its new processor the Pentium, foregoing the previous 286, 386, 486 convention. Pentium was pilloried as the most hare-brained naming convention devised yet. Today - thanks to millions of dollars in TV and magazine ads, Pentium is common and accepted and most folks are clueless as to what it means except for what the ads tell them. It's one saving grace is that its roots are actually tied to what it means - 5 - it is called "Pentium" because it is the fifth in the 80x86 line. It would have been called the 80586 had a US court not ruled that you can't trademark a number.
Pentium comes from "pentamerous", "5", and arises from the Greek Pente, which actually derives from penkwe which has Indo-European roots.
In my mind I still map Pentium to 586 as in my area Penta is the name of a widely sold and advertised economy paint (no - its not a fifth generation paint, the marketing guys say its because it rhymes with "paint"). My kids however know to stay away from INTEL'S "Celery" processor however - (no, I do not want a computer with THAT processor".
I guess Odyssey (for those who have not read the book), will evoke other things (the name of the local disco for my teenager), and the other names will eventually grow on us. At least better than the naming convention used by other clueless hosts, for e.g. BA, EB, 1U, WS which does not mean anything to me - it's used by a Canadian hosting company.
NoahM
11-03-2003, 11:44 AM
To help those that have a hard time remembering the names a good mnemonic phrase may help. As a student I can attest to their usefulness.;)
Evoir
11-03-2003, 12:35 PM
Wow. Thanks and congradulations on the growth!
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 01:31 PM
These are fine names, I like them. For a long list of reasons, it is not important whether you (or any one else) likes these package designations as names. I would like them if they were named after my favorite musical groups from the 60s and 70s, but so what? The important issue is whether they serve their intended purpose, which is to convey a hierarchy or range of services to prospective customers. If they fail in that purpose (or fall short of what they could do if better selected), then they are failing in the only measure that has any importance. The objections raised by voiceguy were discussed at length in an earlier thread, so I can only assume that the new names were chosen in light of the possible confusion they may cause for the language impaired. I don't visit these forums regularly, and have no knowledge of any earlier discussion. If your point is that the earlier discussion that I did not participate in somehow forecloses my comments now, I reject that contention. And I resent your implication, if so intended, that by raising these concerns I am "language impaired." Since there are so many variables affecting new business the number of sales lost because of confusion, or gained because of the appeal of the new names will never be known. Possibly correct, but the inability to isolate the effect of this change is irrelevant. The tendency or potential of confusion to affect sales negatively is both known and knowable. David Ogilvy has cited repeated studies that establish this as a problem over the course of decades. It is really not something open to serious disagreement now. But it is a natural filter, weeding out potential clients that are easily confused and would bring their confusion with them as clients. (This is where we see the marketing people wince.) This is utter nonsense, and I can only hope and assume that it was stated with tongue-in-cheek.
The fact that a prospective customer does not immediately assign a relative rank to "pioneer" in relation to "trailblazer" does not mean that this customer is "easily confused." That is just poppycock. It reflects the fact that, linguistically and idiomatically, there is no inherent hierarchy of those two words. Indeed, they would be listed as synonyms in most thesauri (they certainly are in mine).
I see no reason whatsoever to assume that people who could not divine such obscure differences in meaningless terminology would therefore become problem clients. That is nonsense based on some form of cockeyed elitism or something.
And you bet the marketing people would wince. With good reason. It is their job to avoid this very sort of thing. It is their job to steer decisions toward approaches that have proven to be successful. I don't think I'll have any trouble remembering the names or their sequence. But then I've already decided on a Future Quest. And that is why your reaction is not the measure of whether this was a wise choice.
To me it is reminiscent of Abbott & Costello's "Who's On First" routine -- entertaining, but not effective in communication. The new package names add virtually no value to the overall message, and to the extent they are perceived as excessively "cute" may even put off certain potential users.
Since the only issue was filling in a position between Gold and Platinum, I probably would have suggested a term such as "Gold Plus" or "Gold Deluxe" or the like. That still falls pretty clearly into a coherent ranking
I think it is unlikely in the extreme that these new names will improve results. The only question will be whether they cause harm, or increase the burden on the support staff. I hope not, because I have a vested interest in FutureQuest succceeding and remaining viable as a hosting provider.
LightGuide
11-03-2003, 01:43 PM
Just a suggestion, but, for me, at least, as an oldie FQ guy -- and maybe for newcomers, too -- might it be a good idea to include the old descriptive names in paranthesis in a smaller type face under the new names?
Visionary
(Starter)
Pioneer
(Basic)
Prospector
(Silver)
and so on...
etLux
Stephen
11-03-2003, 02:44 PM
seems to me that although the reaction has not been unanimous on the naming issue, it's fairly heavily biased in favor of "FQ, you really dropped the ball on this one."
and i'd have to agree with that. unfortunately you guys completely ignored your own very sensible naming criteria (stressing immediate recognition/association of name with package size) and went with something that made sense only to you (quest related, yes, but quest in itself is a nebulous term). this after encouraging the FQ community to beat their heads against the wall trying to come up with a series of six size-related package names. boy, do i feel lead astray!
of course, it's your marketing plan and you are entirely free to do with it whatever you wish. good luck. i do tend to think, however, that when a sizable number of people (of fair intelligence, and who know your business reasonably well) react with considerable negativism to a marketing campaign, it does not bode well for its longevity or its success.
sorry, but i give it about a month. i predict much nashing of the teeth, as FQ discovers how inconvenient it is to have to keep qualifying your package names with size-related explanations in every facet of your marketing campaigns. seriously, i do think you're worse off now than you were before on the package name issue.
I love all the new package goodies, but I'm not wild about the new names either.
First I don't really like the names "Prospector" or "Trailblazer ". Especially Prospector is such an old west image in my mind that I have a hard time associating it with a high tech server/hosting option. The old names I preferred because they didn't have such strong images and associations with them already.
Second, when Deb explained it, the order made sense, but seeing them for the first time without the explanation I would have assumed Visionary and Pioneer were greater than Prospector and Trailblazer...
I guess overall I liked Silver and Gold and Platinum because you could email or call a friend on the phone and say "your site will need a silver to start and then we can upgrade to a gold once it takes off". I don't see myself saying "yes, we'll start your ecommerce site with a prospector and then upgrade to a trailblazer if the ads pay off"...
But in the end, for me it doesn't really matter at all. To avoid confusion next time I setup a site for a client on FutureQuest I'll simply say "to start you need a $25/month hosting account and I'll take care of everything for you".
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 04:00 PM
Voiceguy, I was not trying to start or continue an argument but neither am I inclined to shy away from one. But if you'll read the earlier thread here:
http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15249&highlight=packages
you'll see that I pretty much agree with your position and argued for it. I also agree with the points you are making now for the most part.
My earlier response in this thread which you mistakenly have taken as a challenge is actually an attempt to rationalize the benefits of the new scheme now that it has been decided upon and the die is cast. Since the same points were argued before the fact we really just have to accept the new names and live with them.
I appreciate that FQ asks for our input, but once they have made a decision continuing the argument is bad form. You may have a vested interest in their success as a client but complaining at this point will just cause bad feelings.
The "language impaired" that I refer to are those who might be confused by the new names. I use the PC term "language impaired" tounge-in-cheek for dumb-****s, but straight-forward for those who cannot speak English or have no knowledge of our pioneer/frontier culture. Please read more carefully before responding.
Andi <edit> spelling typo </edit>
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Andilinks:
Please read more carefully before responding. I not only read your post carefully, I quoted it verbatim and in its entirety in my message to be sure there was no possible misunderstanding. I stand by my comments.
I have now waded through the earlier thread you mentioned (I was not able to find it on my own, probably because it was too old to display in the listings). My reaction: It is not at all clear to me why a marketing decision of this kind would be turned over to people who have no particular background or experience in this kind of thing.
It was immediately apparent that most people contribuing ideas were being silly, or were suggesting things that were plainly inappropriate.
Only a tiny fraction focused on the significant issue of confusion due to lack of ordinality in the words suggested. To quote my original post, "What's done is done." FutureQuest is free to ignore my posts. FutureQuest is free to ignore me. FutureQuest is free to make decisions that harm its business. FutureQuest is free to make marketing decisions without consulting people with marketing expertise.
On April 23, 1985, the Coca-Cola company decided to try to revitalize its brand in the U.S. by changing its formula. 79 days later, following a firestorm of consumer reaction and embarrassing publicity, with an average of 1500 complaint calls per day to Coca-Cola's consumer hotline, the formula was changed back (now known as "Classic") on July 11, 1985.
The move was referred to as the "marketing blunder of the century," and represented a surprising misstep for the late Roberto Goizueta, one of the shrewdest business executives of modern times. He later rationalized the move by pointing to all the publicity and news coverage that it triggered.
The point is, Coke had the power to make its formula-change decision, and every right to make that decision, with or without consulting anybody. That did not make it the right decision. People spoke up about it. That is all I am doing here.
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 05:17 PM
Voiceguy, I still agree with your marketing sense but must object again to your obtuse misunderstanding of my attempt to tactfully approve an FQ decision that I did not agree with.
I think I agree with Stephen that some months hence we will see a quiet reversal. But I will not be one to gloat and say "I told you so," and I am disturbed now that your spurious arguments against my half-hearted diplomatic praise of the decision are causing me to drop my veil of tact.
Also, my original "language impaired" comment is plainly not directed at you though your "voiceguy" name is used within that sentence. If you cannot see this or understand the thrust of my earlier post in this thread perhaps I should reconsider and include you within that "language impaired" class.
Andi
Evoir
11-03-2003, 05:49 PM
I have to believe that Coca-Cola had anticipated a backlash and was happy for the publicity. I don't remember all the details of the CC thing (but I vaguely remember them doing it)... it just seems odd that such a huge and incredibly funded machine of a company would be surprised by anything. I would think that even his surprise was a performance. ;)
Although, I am extreemly cynical.
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 06:01 PM
I have to believe that Coca-Cola had anticipated a backlash and was happy for the publicity. Nope, even conspiratorial black-helicopter multi-national corporations make bone-headed mistakes. Goizueta had only been on the CEO job a few years when he made the "New Coke" blunder and it is to his credit that they finally landed on their feet, but a look at the sales (and stock price) figures for Coke and Pepsi during the year of "New Coke" will tell the story. Not planned.
Andi
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Andilinks:
Voiceguy, I still agree with your marketing sense but must object again to your obtuse misunderstanding of my attempt to tactfully approve an FQ decision that I did not agree with. I have no idea what you mean by "obtuse misunderstanding." I understand what you said, with a couple of specific exceptions that I noted. I disagree with what you said, and stated so.I think I agree with Stephen that some months hence we will see a quiet reversal. But I will not be one to gloat and say "I told you so," and I am disturbed now that your spurious arguments against my half-hearted diplomatic praise of the decision are causing me to drop my veil of tact. I would not be surprised, either, if this decision is reexamined in coming weeks -- only time will tell.
The fact that I disagree with you does not make my statements "spurious." Moreover, I am not the one asserting that anyone confused by the new terminology would be a bad customer for FutureQuest, nor was I the one who introduced the concept of "language impaired" as an issue. I said before, and will say again, that (1) even native speakers of English are likely to be confused by the new terminology, and (2) confusion is the enemy of sales and marketing. If you consider those statements to be "spurious arguments," you are entitled to your opinion. Also, my original "language impaired" comment is plainly not directed at you though your "voiceguy" name is used within that sentence. If you cannot see this or understand the thrust of my earlier post in this thread perhaps I should reconsider and include you within that "language impaired" class. Now that you confirm that the comment was not directed at me, I accept that. I hope you can see how, in the context of your message, and the specific wording of that sentence, it might have been understood as a personal dig.
I understood your earlier post to say, in substance, that (a) you liked the new names, (b) you did not take seriously any concerns about misunderstandings they might create, and (c) you thought any commentary about the subject was inappropriate once FutureQuest had made its decision. You are entitled to those views; I am entitled to disagree with them, or to argue that they miss the point of my original posting.
I see no reason not to make the comments I made about the subject, and stand by what I said. Indeed, I would argue that it does not serve any company well for its customers to conceal their feelings about the company's actions. If FutureQuest does not want to hear from me, it is free to disable my password to this forum, or to close the forum down altogether. That would be out of character for the company.
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 06:34 PM
I have no idea what you mean by "obtuse misunderstanding." OK, Mr. Voiceguy I will make one last stab at splainin' it to ya.
Your wife, (imagine you have one if you don't) meets you for an important business dinner with your clients wearing a perfectly hideous outfit.
Do you:
1) Tell her your opinion before dinner, upset her and spoil the mood for the entire evening?
2) Smile and tell her how nice she looks and ride with it until at least after the dinner when the discord will not affect the tenor of the evening?
I have no doubt that you and others may disagree with my mildly positive reactions to the new names. But your strong arguments against them are an "obtuse misunderstanding" of their true meaning and for that reason they are spurious.
Andi
C'mon people, let's not lose sight (eek) of the bigger picture here ... we don't like the new package names ... doesn't matter if we like each other. :P
Dan
PaulKroll
11-03-2003, 07:23 PM
I have to believe that Coca-Cola had anticipated a backlash and was happy for the publicity.
I'm not so sure: Coke did a considerable amount of work taste testing the new forumla. I don't think they planned out the whole thing: I think they just missed. And folks were on the air complaining about the taste, but when 20/20 actually blind-taste-tested a bunch of people who were lobbying Coke to bring back the old formula, most of them picked Pepsi or New Coke instead of the old Coke.
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Andilinks:
I have no doubt that you and others may disagree with my mildly positive reactions to the new names. But your strong arguments against them are an "obtuse misunderstanding" of their true meaning and for that reason they are spurious. If you say so.
Wassercrats
11-03-2003, 07:45 PM
Package names that meet all of FutureQuest's package name needs aren't easy to come up with, and I wouldn't want FutureQuest spending money on a marketing firm for this. The names, with my adjustments, aren't perfect, but they're fine. Big deal if you have to refer to a list. At most, you'll have to memorize the name of your package--one word--and refer to the list when you want to upgrade. If you're a reseller, keep the list near you and talk numbers rather than names to your clients.
When I first heard of FutureQuest, I didn't like the name. It seemed too cliched. But then I found out how difficult it is to find the perfect, available name, and now I think they are lucky to have gotten it.
hobbes
11-03-2003, 07:55 PM
Now Deb, see what you've started ... :)
Originally posted by hobbes:
Now Deb, see what you've started ... :) I even tried to butter all of you up week after week after week for an entire month to prep you for it :P
I -did- anticipate clients having a difficult time adjusting to the names... It's a "big change" in a small way and that's always complicated to deal with, however, I admit that it is disturbing to see contention over it. I like discussion...especially heated debates when it comes to decision time as that is often the way 'real issues' get solved, but I do hope things do not turn into an all out argument ;)
Coming up with the names was NOT easy, those who tried, saw how difficult it is to come up with 6 names that flowed together and had some sense of weight to them. I also did not want to go the 1, 2, 3 route as we are "daring to be different". Weight was the hardest thing to get through and we decided to ease up a bit on the issue to continue on with the theme idea and the travels/travelers we chose do have a beginning and an end goal that shows greater distances etc... and I personally, love the new names, so nyah :P I see no reason not to make the comments I made about the subject, and stand by what I said. Indeed, I would argue that it does not serve any company well for its customers to conceal their feelings about the company's actions. If FutureQuest does not want to hear from me, it is free to disable my password to this forum, or to close the forum down altogether. That would be out of character for the company. Totally out of character for FutureQuest and you'll hear no complaint from us against voicing your opinion... appreciation would be a more accurate way to define it. Though we may not always agree or be able to satisfy everyone's ideas, we do appreciate hearing them and could not have come as far as we have without them. When I first heard of FutureQuest, I didn't like the name. It seemed too cliched. But then I found out how difficult it is to find the perfect, available name, and now I think they are lucky to have gotten it. When we chose the name we were told by many that it would never work for a hosting company... the same arguments as voiceguy is posting now against the package names came forth (and still do from time to time) against the business name. Though I think there can be truly BAD NAMES, I also believe that one can "make a name" by the efforts they put behind it. Many recognize FutureQuest now for what it is and that is what is important to us.
FutureQuest is the hosting provider we are still promoting. The names of the packages within are just that and they continue the "Quest" idea with their travels. They of course will take a bit of getting used to. None of you have had even 24 hours with the names yet. For those who only work with one or two packages I think the names are of minimal concern. For those who work with a number of packages often, I think time working with the names will help. For newcomers I do not believe it will be all that confusing, though time will tell. If of course the names just blow up in our faces and there appears to be a continued problem, then by all means we'll head back to the web site and update everything all over again ;)
Deb
- Ironic but true -- FutureQuest activated more new accounts today than we have on any other Monday this year %)
couldn't have been the disk space...must have been the names
LightGuide
11-03-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Deb:
- Ironic but true -- FutureQuest activated more new accounts today than we have on any other Monday this year %)
So much for opinions -- including mine... lol.
Chicken proves!
etLux
FutureQuest activated more new accounts today than we have on any other Monday this year
Yeah, but did you have a survey at the end of the activation page asking if they actually got the package they were intending? ;)
Dan
Originally posted by dank:
Yeah, but did you have a survey at the end of the activation page asking if they actually got the package they were intending? ;)
Dan No cancels just yet.. does that count? :o
Andilinks
11-03-2003, 10:21 PM
if they actually got the package they were intending? Perhaps a package named "the Wonderer?"
Or in Quest speak, the Wanderer.
Me, I was kind of hoping for a Swashbuckler package.
Dan
LightGuide
11-03-2003, 10:36 PM
Ah, you're just a bunch of ol' poops who can't take a little change... lol.
etLux
voiceguy
11-03-2003, 11:40 PM
When we chose the name we were told by many that it would never work for a hosting company... the same arguments as voiceguy is posting now against the package names came forth (and still do from time to time) against the business name. Though I think there can be truly BAD NAMES, I also believe that one can "make a name" by the efforts they put behind it. Many recognize FutureQuest now for what it is and that is what is important to us. When I went looking for a new web host in early 2002 -- after the small ISP I had been with for many years was bought up by Verio and allowed to wither on the vine, with ever-more-frequent outages and declining support -- I stumbled across FutureQuest at a site that purported to rate web hosts.
There is no question that I was put off by the name. It is hard to take seriously, because it sounds like a cartoon show or a ride at Disneyland. But as I read the information, and particularly the "white paper" about honesty in hosting, it became clear that the people behind the company seemed sincere in trying to do something that was in defiance of the overbooking / bait-and-switch paradigm that seemed prevalent in so many settings. I was sold on the company by this presentation. However, there can be no question that it was in spite of the name. Based on the name alone, I would probably not have given a second look.
Look: Starbucks sells lots of coffee, despite its confusing size designations. Toyota sells lots of cars, despite its bewildering array of model names (probably too many). People in downtown Los Angeles have learned that the north-south streets in the business district are Figueroa St., Flower St., Hope St., Grand Ave., Hill Street, Broadway, Spring St., and Main St. (Their lives are made easier because the cross-streets are sequentially numbered.) Medical students learn to name all the bones in the hand (using naughty mmemonics). It's not impossible.
But in a lot of the situations I have mentioned, people have no choice. In the web hosting world, there are zillions of choices, and many of those choices may appear simpler and more user-friendly. That is the essence of the concern I have raised.
I don't even know whether having six steps (service plans) is the right number. That would be a marketing test in itself.
In all events, as I have no immediate need (or intention) of changing plans, the name change will not affect me personally. You could name the plans after the moons of Jupiter or the characters in King Lear as far as I, personally, am concerned. It is prospective new users that I worry about.
Good luck.
songdog
11-04-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Syneryder:
Santa must have something nifty planned for Christmas this year.Maybe an SA upgrade to 2.60?
Regarding the new package names ... it just occured to me that they all sound like minivans. That's not all bad, really. Utility, practicality. Not sexy.
But hey, with a web host I'm all for practicality! And options.
Thanks FQ!
I think all the upgrades and new packages are great. I'm not too fond of the naming, but I understand the considerations. I do have one usability issue. In the old naming system, MySQL-enabled packages coincided with precious metals--if the account was named "Starter" or "Basic" I new without a second thought that MySQL wasn't included.
I have to admit, under the new naming system, I'm relying mostly on prices for knowing what features are included, but had to check the names one last time to verify that I had picked the right MySQL-enabled package before placing an order a few minutes ago.
If FQ goes the long haul with the new names, I'd request/ recommend including an overview of the package specs during the ordering process to help avoid confusion.
Thanks, Matt
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.