View Full Version : cont... new reseller plan concerns/complaints
... thus it is written.
http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18473&page=22&pp=10
Please quote the exact language I used to say that I "took offense to" those particular points.
You didn't have to say it in those exact words. It was pretty easy to see from the personal nature in which you chose to respond.
You also say I am "unable or unwilling to refute"... and yet you have ignored my last post and moved off tangentially.
I ignored nothing of the sort. I said I was uninterested in arguing semantics, which is what you chose to focus on. Talk about tangents.
Deb never said that FQ "refused" to notify in advance.
No, of course not. That was taken from hobbes' summary of the requests for advance notification which Deb turned down.
"Refusal to solicit input or feedback". This is part of the previous point. It is entirely unreasonable (an understatement) to see Deb's 24-hour-a-day presence in this forum for days on end, listening to users' concerns, giving detailed explanations and offering help -- as she did specifically for you -- to be a "Refusal to solicit input or feedback".
That's all after-the-fact stuff, which isn't what I was referring to. FutureQuest knew they would be making changes that would affect their Resellers, who are in effect business partners, yet saw it unnecessary to solicit input in advance. That's my gripe, and I don't see any possible way it can be refuted. It's been documented several times.
You are ascribing an intention ("refusal to look at ... the opposing viewpoint") to someone, but you cannot substantiate it.
Sure I can. I made the offer and it was refused. Pretty darn simple.
If I were in her position, I would say the exact same thing
Which would explain why you're defending her position. :rolleyes:
Look, all throughout that thread, the point I and several others tried to raise -- that the claimed improvements were actually a step backward for resellers -- was shot down as basically a trick of accounting or poor business choices. Well, I've got news for you ... that's b.s., and I've got the spreadsheet to "prove" it. If Deb believes her claims to be correct, it's in her best interest to look at the evidence and disprove its validity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with acting as a financial advisor. I'm probably better trained in that area than most of you here... Because Deb doesn't want to look at the spreadsheet I put together, my conclusion is a pretty logical one: FQ is set in their decision and has no interest in reviewing things objectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but I gave Deb every opportunity to prove it and she didn't. It would've taken her a matter of minutes to review, as opposed to the hours spent responding in the forum...
"Refusal to give resulting concerns anything more than passing consideration". Utterly subjective. And, IMO, utterly ridiculous.
And utterly supported by FQ's unwillingness to budge from their chosen position (so much for Monty's hope early in that thread that the number of FQ staff monitoring it was indicative of behind the scenes discussions of whether to make changes on the fly), and later unwillingness to analyze the opposing viewpoint. Sure, lots of discourse went on, but nothing resembling true listening. It isn't listening if there's no intent to actually hear and process.
this supposed "resolution" of yours was reached just after the company representative left the thread.
What's that have to do with anything? My "resolution" post was a summary of where I felt things wrapped up, leaving us with the uncertainty of where Resellers rank in FQ's list of priorities. It appears from recent happenings that it's pretty low, and I feel that is a very important subject for those it affects. Sorry you disagree.
Dan
That's it, I'm getting the large popcorn for this one! ;)
Snarpy
01-08-2005, 07:28 PM
:rolleyes: Take a hint. :QTquiet:
Or at least, could you guys take this into PMs?
Snarpy
cindik
01-08-2005, 07:56 PM
:rolleyes:
This whole discussion will never end until we stop replyi...:blush:
oops.
I really wanted the discussion to end but *sigh* I do feel the need to respond to some serious and direct accusations... :(
Refusal to notify in advance,
Notification that the $60 special would be going away was on the site for quite some time. 60 days I believe.
Discussion concerning it happened on these forums at:
http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=121521#post121521
Within that thread I note I do discuss the problems with the discount and the "double dipping"/extra discounts resellers were getting.
The website/thread noted that the $60 special would end...which, w/o anything else would equate to $5 more per month increase for annual packages, but that none of the price changes will affect any annual packages for a minimum of 30 days (from the time of the actual announcement) to as much as a year, and that because of other changes which will be announced, the impact should leave you at "about the same or a whole lot lower" depending on the choices you make because when you see "the whole picture" you'll find that the increase is not near as much as simply closing out the special would be.
The End Result:
ALL Monthly Non-Resold Visionary, Pioneer, Prospector, Trailblazer, Voyager, Odyssey, High Capacity, and MQS Packages Are Lower In Cost whether the client does something or nothing.
All Monthly Resold Visionary, Pioneer, Prospector, Trailblazer, Voyager, Odyssey, High Capacity, and MQS Packages Are Lower In Cost whether the reseller does something or nothing
All Annual Non-Resold Prospector, Trailblazer, Voyager, Odyssey, High Capacity, and MQS Packages Are Lower In Cost whether the site owner does something or nothing.
All Annual Resold Voyager and Odyssey Packages Are Lower In Cost whether the reseller does something or nothing.
All Annual Non-Resold & Resold Visionary and Pioneer Packages are higher in cost by about a dollar per month
Some Annual Resold Prospector and Trailblazer Packages are higher and some are lower depending on how the extra points etc affected the reseller and providing they refuse to downgrade for whatever reason. Price difference is less than a $1 per month....
The VAST MAJORITY ARE LOWER IN COST.
whether you wish to agree or not.
Of those that are not in the majority, it depends on the site owner/reseller's requirements. Many Pioneers were able to downgrade to the Visionary and lower their costs. Other's choose not to downgrade for a variety of reasons and incur a $12/yr annual increase along with a ton of extra features...
For those resellers with Prospector size and above, a huge number of them are in fact downgrading and lowering their costs by a LOT. Others choose not to for a variety of reasons and may incur an increase in costs of less than a dollar a month. This falls into their own decisions and how their current system/packages/etc worked out.
For those on the Visionary that have no where to downgrade to, a huge number wanted MySQL and/or more disk space/bandwidth. The majority got what they had been demanding for quite some time but at a cost of $1 per month extra (a price many on these forums said they'd be more than happy to pay for the extras, esp MySQL). At the same time, there's another group in this area that simply incurred a $12/yr increase and had no use for the extra features. These are the folks I expected to hear more complaints from, understandably, however, there have not been too many as of yet.
My point?
We notified that the annual packages would be $5/month more by the 1st of the year on the web site for a long while.
We discussed on the forums that this change would come with many others and that it shouldn't be quite as bad as it sounds, most will benefit, and some will need to make decisions.
I could not lay out the entire plan because yes, I worked to the very last moments ensuring I was giving the lowest possible costs to everyone and the billing system was still being rewritten to handle the new plans. It didn't even get all of the way completed which caused some concern as to whether or not it could even be done. However, to ensure it could be, and since the scripting side of the system still is not all of the way completed, I agreed to come in every night and handle it manually until it is done. Which is exactly what I will continue to do. Why? Because for the vast majority of site owners these surprise lower costs and bigger packages are a welcomed treat and I didn't want to delay it any further.
----
The above is my excuse, reasoning, explanation.
Now... at the same time I acknowledge that no complete explanation for the resellers prior to the announcement made it difficult at best. If I could have I would have but I couldn't. There were too many unknowns all of the way to the last minute but I felt that since no price change would affect anyone for at least 30 days that it would be fine since technically it's like getting at least a 30 day heads up while obtaining the "goodies" immediately. Unfortunately that didn't work out so well for some of the resellers and the simpler plan actually caused confusion because switching from the more confusing old plan to the new was overwhelming.
For this, I do apologize, have apologized, and believe it or not, agonized over long before the announcement.
I had two choices:
From the time we were certain we could provide everything promised we could Announce or we could "announce to resellers and wait 30 days" to talk about it.
The facts:
People were vehemently demanding more disk space and bandwidth.
People needed MySQL with the Visionary
People were pleading for lower overall costs.
Discussions were not going to change the requirements of fixing the specials and ending the annual reseller invoicing.
The Resolution:
Announce it as soon as humanly possible so that the masses can be taken care of and work with those that landed in the "Red Zone" to assist them in understanding all of their available options. This is what I did. Judging from the majority, this was the right decision to make. Nevertheless, it left some valuable resellers feeling jilted and the most I could do, have done, and certainly am doing again right now is apologize.
refusal to solicit input or feedback,
This would be a lie. No I did not come to the forums and lay out my business plan for all to see and request their feedback, but yes it is very much the feedback of ALL INVOLVED that caused the changes to happen as they did.
refusal to give resulting concerns anything more than passing consideration,
This I consider to be a lie as well. I read all concerns carefully. I responded to all concerns. I explained everything repeatedly as best as I possibly could. Changing the rules to suit the requirements of a handful of resellers and "giving resulting concerns consideration" are two totally different things. I absolutely gave all concerns far more than passing consideration.
and refusal to even look at documented explanations of the opposing viewpoint (which supposedly is wrong).
I do not believe this to be true either. I went over your entire account and mapped it out....
Review:
http://aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=123911#post123911
You then wanted to show me how it affected your actual business plan. Well, to me, I clearly already saw how it could help or hurt your plan. If you make no changes it will certainly hurt. If you adjust it might help. This doesn't make your statement that "it's worse" right or wrong. It just means, yes, it could be worse, or yes, you could make it better.
I didn't feel it vital that I review the numbers in your plan vs the factual numbers of what you get and for how much.
If, however, you would like to share your plan within the forums, then I'd be happy to offer my input as well.
If your plan is private, then again, I feel it should remain that way. It was you yourself that stated, in not so many words, if it wasn't public then it couldn't be true or accepted as truth, and/or if I didn't share my own books with you then they cannot be considered.
I can not and will not share my books with you for several reasons and I can not (as much as I WOULD LOVE TO) show you the tremendous savings many resellers are receiving right now. Just as I don't think you should really be sharing "your books" either. But if you want to...we'll have a look. If it's private, then I still stand my recommendation to keep it that way because my opinions of how you should run your business are not something I really want to spend time developing nor something you should really need... By showing me "what's wrong with your plan and our system" I could only recommend ways to change your plan to work with this system...and even that I've already done.... the rest I feel is your decision. I don't think you can call that a refusal...just a reality...imho.
-----------------
The VAST MAJORITY ARE LOWER IN COST.
whether you wish to agree or not.
The relevant packages are higher in cost, whether you want to view the explaining data or not.
No I did not come to the forums and lay out my business plan for all to see and request their feedback
Why not? It's a serious question. What would have been risked by laying it out for comment? It's going to end up being public knowledge, regardless.
If, however, you would like to share your plan within the forums, then I'd be happy to offer my input as well.
I thought about it, but formatting would be a sizable challenge. Perhaps posted as a web page... There's really nothing private about it, other than the domain names which I can easily remove. My pricing is displayed on my website for the world to see, and anyone can figure from the number of packages what my FQ discount and resulting rates are.
Dan
he relevant packages are higher in cost, whether you want to view the explaining data or not. I've pointed out clearly which packages would be higher in cost. Relevance depends on the site owner and their requirements. In your case, the ones of most concern are the Pioneer and Prospector. You've stated several times the Visionary is not "relevant" but many would disagree. Point being each package changed and for most it was for the better and for some the worse. Why not? It's a serious question. What would have been risked by laying it out for comment? It's going to end up being public knowledge, regardless. Because our business details are in fact private as they should be in this competitive market. They are not for site owner, competition, or other public consumption. The points that concern you are laid out for you and the reasons I can provide have been provided. Beyond that, it is unwise to share publicly. Sharing too much also infringes on privacy agreements and frankly until you start paying the bills simply isn't of concern to you. The whole idea of this type of service is so that you don't have to worry a whole heck of a lot about the increase in utilities or the rates of an OC3 or the cost of RAM this month etc.... That's our job and in doing so we must also ensure we are providing a service that will entice clients to make it all a reality.
Deb
- Finally... because I aint gotta, don't wanna, gots no time to do it for the world anyway, and you can't make me :P
You've stated several times the Visionary is not "relevant" but many would disagree.
How is a package with such a low margin of value to reseller's, unless the site is only for themselves? In which case it's effectively back to a cost-only (not profit margin) consideration as with non-resellers.
Because our business details are in fact private as they should be in this competitive market.
I don't know why you keep making this an issue of private business details. It wasn't for me, and I see no reason why it should be for you. I'm talking about sharing thoughts for how to make a program work best for everyone, not listing your accountant's mom's maiden name. We can pretty much work backward to get to what you felt are the necessary margins to maintain, so nothing would have been lost by sharing that up front and working collectively on the best way of getting there.
It feels as if you don't trust the business sense of anyone outside your staff, but it was you yourself who admittedly were working on changes so at-the-last-minute that they couldn't be announced prior. I'm quite confident that a plan could have been hatched collectively that would have worked at least as well for you and avoided this whole mess.
For anyone not thoroughly disgusted and disinterested, here's the spreadsheet I put together:
http://abledesign.com/plan_comparison.html
Fire away! If I've made any mistakes or false assumptions, I'm sure I'll be notified...
Dan
DogAndPony
01-08-2005, 09:49 PM
I gave you the last word in another thread, Dan... But I see you chose to start a whole new one... apparently so I'd read your reply after I unsubbed from the other thread, and/or so that others who tired of that thread would read your posts.
You are one funny guy.
And since you simply restated your opinion (not facts) in your last post, there's no need for me to respond to anything there.
I'll stick around to watch the show. Could get interesting.
...Bob
Bob West
I gave you the last word in another thread, Dan... But I see you chose to start a whole new one... apparently so I'd read your reply after I unsubbed from the other thread, and/or so that others who tired of that thread would read your posts.
Or there's the less malevolent door #3... The thread was locked by the time I checked back in and saw your response. Thanks for assuming the worst of me, though. Par for the course.
And since you simply restated your opinion (not facts) in your last post, there's no need for me to respond to anything there.
Nice cop out. Don't step in the ring if you aren't prepared to lace up.
Dan
DogAndPony
01-08-2005, 10:14 PM
Or there's the less malevolent door #3... The thread was locked by the time I checked back in and saw your response. Thanks for assuming the worst of me, though. Par for the course.Ah. I looked at the thread and didn't see that it was locked. I probably hadn't refreshed the page. My mistake.
Nice cop out. Don't step in the ring if you aren't prepared to lace up. Again with the fighting imagery, Dan? LOL!
Let me just put it this way. I ain't Marty McFly. Calling me "chicken" doesn't make me want to "fight".
Besides, you're doing fine all by yourself. :yeah:
...Bob
How is a package with such a low margin of value to reseller's, unless the site is only for themselves? In which case it's effectively back to a cost-only (not profit margin) consideration as with non-resellers. We've got several that thrive on the Visionary. They sell their hosting as "part of a bigger package" for which includes design and programming etc etc. If the Visionary is big enough for the site, and the client cost simply "includes the cost of hosting" then it's in the best interest of the reseller to obtain the lowest cost package available that handles all of the client's requirements.
For some it's quite relevant. It just depends on the services offered and the target market. For others, it offers little to no value. We just can't say it's not "relevant at all" by assuming that if it is not relevant for us it's relevant for no one. For YOU it's not... for several others it's not, but for a whole different type of FutureQuest resellers it is. I'm talking about sharing thoughts for how to make a program work best for everyone, not listing your accountant's mom's maiden name. Different interpretation of the issue/question/answers at hand. Discussions in general are fine and I participate in them often. Where I can't I don't...where I can I do..and where most appropriate I make decisions as I need to and that often does not require a public forum for this type of company outside of a lot of listening and research involving the "whole picture" which includes many more areas than the forums. For anyone not thoroughly disgusted and disinterested, here's the spreadsheet I put together:
http://abledesign.com/plan_comparison.html I have NOT spent the time to check all of the math etc on the page you put up, doubt that's needed, but it does seem to look like everything that's been discussed already...
From the page:
"Old Pioneer rates to clients were $13.95/mo. on an annual contract (only option offered for billing simplicity), new is $15.95/mo."
Old Pioneer your cost was $7.48 per month if paid annually.
If the client closed out early then you were charged $9.98 for the time used (the monthly rate)
New Pioneer your cost if paid monthly is $8.97
Old Revenue: $6.47 (if they didn't close out early)
If you charge $15.95 then your new revenue would be: $6.98 (51 cents more)
Or you could not increase the price quite as much by only going to $15.50 and your revenue would still be a few pennies more than the old revenue.
Or you can leave it the same (even though you're offering them a whole lot more) and your revenue would drop to $4.98 which is the $1.49 less per month I've been referring to.
Old Prospector Pricing: $12.48
New Prospector Pricing: $13.47
Difference in your profits if you do not change their pricing: 99 cents less
If you downgrade them and charge them $15.95/month then your profit will decrease by $3.49/mo
It seems three of the sites are yours so by downgrading them to the 'best fit packages' you could cover up for quite a bit of the loss, if you decide to take the loss, on the Pioneers just by adjusting your own packages to fit your own web sites.
It all just depends on how serious you are about selling the hosting. For us it is what puts food on the table and a roof over our head so these changes are vitally important to ensuring sales can remain steady. I've seen some reseller's already singing the praises of their new bigger offerings that make it appear like they are thinking the same thing. For you, the plan seems to be more of a side project separate from all of your other offerings rather than being "included with" and thus you fall into that red zone where, as was noted, you'd either need to take the loss on the side income, or take this opportunity to consider restructuring your plan to make it work better for you while leaving you, as their host, with the abilities to make the best decisions at the best rates for their websites...especially those sites you designed and continue to maintain for them. e.g. moving that 'side income' into your main revenue stream to see an increase in your income rather than a decrease in your "fun money" (or whatever it needs to be called).
Overall though, I don't see anything in your chart that wasn't already discussed. It looks about right under your current system and from here it's just going to be a matter of if you can take the new offerings and turn them into something that increases your sales from what they were before since that of course is what causes any loss to turn into a gain ;)
Deb
- still looking for my camera
If the Visionary is big enough for the site, and the client cost simply "includes the cost of hosting" then it's in the best interest of the reseller to obtain the lowest cost package available that handles all of the client's requirements.
I don't buy it, unless the client is being overcharged, in which case I maintain that it's a disservice to the client. Otherwise, there's no profit to be made by the reseller, the client would be better served hosting directly through FQ, and the reseller would be better off spending the time on other business.
I don't see why you keep regurgitating the same calculations... They just cloud the issue by making things extra difficult to follow. I've offered a very streamlined page of individual and cumulative numbers to compare the net effect. Either it's right or it isn't. That's all that really needs to be commented on if you want to settle the debate. If there's nothing wrong with it, then either my situation is highly abnormal (which I very much doubt, given it's about as normal of a site usage pattern as you're going to find), or an apology is owed by FutureQuest, because the new plan is not better, and my name has been dragged through the mud a good deal for suggesting otherwise.
Dan
Wassercrats
01-08-2005, 11:02 PM
This is the impression I've come away with after reading some of this. The reseller plan is optimized (intentionally or not) for certain situations. In Dank's case, reselling the hosting with no value added services isn't as good a deal for his clients as having them buy hosting directly through Futurequest, even though he could shuffle things so that his clients pay less and he earns more than with the old plan. Deb is emphasizing the good, and Dank is emphasizing the bad, Dank is also upset because Deb didn't address his investment suggestions and because she won't review his spreadsheet.
Is there any more to this of any significance than the above paragraph? Will there be? I doubt it. This thread is destined to become a huge waste of time.
I don't buy it, unless the client is being overcharged, in which case I maintain that it's a disservice to the client. Otherwise, there's no profit to be made by the reseller, the client would be better served hosting directly through FQ, and the reseller would be better off spending the time on other business. Resellers have the opportunity to offer their clients more than FutureQuest offers (instant phone support, hand holding, host locating, domain name registration, filling out forms, varying levels of support, design, programming, search engine placement etc) and therefore raising the price of the total package is by no means deceptive.
If the reseller is NOT offering more than FutureQuest then the client MIGHT be better off just hosting with FutureQuest directly. I say "might" because the client might only know of and trust the reseller but left to their own devices they may end up like so many others on a host hop from one bad host to the next in that they might never find FutureQuest or see the advantages of FutureQuest.
For those "resellers" that have no real intent to offer more than what FutureQuest is offering and feel the client could host just as easily with FutureQuest as they could with the "reseller" then I would likely recommend the QuestAffiliate program rather than the Reseller program. This way you get a quick 20 bucks for the reference and you don't have to worry about anything else....
I don't see why you keep regurgitating the same calculations... They just cloud the issue by making things extra difficult to follow. I've offered a very streamlined page of individual and cumulative numbers to compare the net effect. Either it's right or it isn't. That's all that really needs to be commented on if you want to settle the debate. If there's nothing wrong with it, then either my situation is highly abnormal (which I very much doubt, given it's about as normal of a site usage pattern as you're going to find), or an apology is owed by FutureQuest, because the new plan is not better, and my name has been dragged through the mud a good deal for suggesting otherwise. I confirmed the numbers that I looked at, I noted I didn't see any problem with your numbers, and I noted that to ensure your profits could survive the hit there are some options that I personally would take advantage of. Not quite sure what else you want.
If you are asking me to apologize for making your business worse, I struggle to do so. If your packages didn't look more enticing than they were before yet still had to endure a cost increase then yes, I'd be apologizing. However, looking at your page it shows that your packages just got a whole lot bigger for a lil bit more per month and there's a chance that'll turn into better sales for you depending on how much you work to market it.... In the end how it all turns out I think is going to be up to you and your target market.
If you are asking me to apologize for having to make changes and not being able to discuss them in detail with you ahead of time.. I apologize, as I already have before in a few different responses to you.
As far as your situation being normal or abnormal... I can't tell you that it is normal. There's quite a few resellers that really depend on their sales and for that reason have sold quite a few more packages that spread in size from tiny to huge. They also don't "under price" by charging less than FutureQuest and trying to offer more.
You are offering them the same in hosting services that we are PLUS you are doing a lot of the work for them (filling out our order forms and handling the support for them etc) but you are charging less. It would seem you have every right to charge the same or more depending on how much more you are really doing for them. If FutureQuest were handling their support, FutureQuest would charge more than you are charging. You have to ask yourself if your support is actually worth less than ours, the same as ours, or more than ours and from there decide your pricing. Everyone knows that one of the biggest mistakes in business, primarily soho, is failing to charge for your time accordingly. Don't sell yourself short.
an apology is owed by FutureQuest, because the new plan is not better, and my name has been dragged through the mud a good deal for suggesting otherwise. This is where the major cross road is I guess. From where I am sitting and from what I am seeing, the new plan is leaps and bounds better. I've watched a large number of resellers immediately benefit from it and a huge number of non-resold clients benefit. So as a company looking at the overall picture I'd have to say it's a success and better. In your situation, as well as a handful of other resellers, it turned out to be worse if:
Adjustments cannot be made
Sales will not be increased by the larger offerings
Reseller is trying to top FutureQuest Pricing and not charging any extra for their own extra work.
Existing number of accounts is not enough to cover the increase on the packages affected.
a)
I do see at least three package adjustments that you could make which would save you money... as explained already... by making changes to *your* three packages in a way that will not affect their resource requirements at all but will lower your monthly bill.
b) If you were up to it, you could also take the larger offerings and use them to go out and try to gain some new clientele to increase your overall sales and thus your profits
c) Evaluate what you are offering your clients and consider whether or not the "lower than FutureQuest" costs are actually needed due to your services offering less than we do, or if you've possibly been undercharging for your services. If FutureQuest tried to undercut all of the other hosts "just cuz of the dollar sign", we'd already be out of business. This is why we try to excel so that we can actually earn what it takes to continue doing so.
A, B, and C, are the three items right off the top that I would have to suggest as a way of ensuring this new plan works in your favor and turns out to be better. Thus the reason I cannot say "it's just worse". Time, providing you include action, will tell if it is worse...but I can't sit here and honestly tell you that, even in your particular situation, what FutureQuest has done has made it worse for you. If I were not involved at all and just a friend sitting down at the table with you looking at the facts I'd still point out ways you could turn this perceived lemon into lemonade and if you put forth the effort I believe it absolutely can be done.
It's not in my nature Dan. If it were, where do you think you or I would be? When we colocated, our Data Center shut down. *poof* gone in three days. You have no where to go. You will not be getting a refund. Nothing..it's over... All the screaming in the world would not have changed the fact that unless I take action it's all over with and every site we host is just "gone".
Instead I'm the type of person to fight back, along with Terra, and take the bulls by the horns (and there have been several of them and yes, having our own data center is a whole lot more expensive yet we still managed to not impact the clients over it) and regardless the trials try to find a way to work through them (no matter how much cussing at Bob must be done in the process) to find a way to turn the lemons into something sweet. Thus, we now have our own data center and continue to host sites like yours... So if you are wanting me to look you in the virtual eye and say "yep..your situation sucks...sorry... must suck to be you"... I can't. Because I DO SEE ways you can turn this into something positive...if you really want to of course. This thread is destined to become a huge waste of time. The thread isn't even a total waste... maybe it's that "thing I can't do" lol but I've seen folks like you stand up for me and/or FutureQuest as a whole which is priceless, and Dan and I may actually be mending our communication a bit which would of course help the end goal.
Deb
- Hours in Forums / Dan's Monthly Fees = Oh Boy he's getting a deal!
Randall
01-08-2005, 11:39 PM
Dan and I may actually be mending our communication a bit which would of course help the end goal. God, I hope so.
Randall
Resellers have the opportunity to offer their clients more than FutureQuest offers (instant phone support, hand holding, host locating, domain name registration, filling out forms, varying levels of support, design, programming, search engine placement etc) and therefore raising the price of the total package is by no means deceptive.
Are you suggesting withholding such services from clients who already have their hosting taken care of elsewhere? If so, then that's what I would deem a lousy business decision. If not, then it is deceptive to overcharge for the resold services, unless the client has been made aware of the cheaper alternative.
Frankly, I'm rather offended at the implied suggestion that I compromise my morals in order to see how the changes are for the better. Maybe perturbed is a better word.
looking at your page it shows that your packages just got a whole lot bigger for a lil bit more per month and there's a chance that'll turn into better sales for you depending on how much you work to market it....
Doubtful. Package size has never been an issue for me or my clients, but I've already said that numerous times.
You have to ask yourself if your support is actually worth less than ours, the same as ours, or more than ours and from there decide your pricing.
I said in the previous thread that, in my opinion, any reseller who feels their service is as good or better than FQ's is fooling themselves. They might be able to offer extras (which I believe to be primarily nonsense, as explained above), but they can't match the collective knowledge, staff availability, and degree of tools at hand. Just ain't gonna happen. I know I'm not alone in this sentiment, because it's been echoed by numerous others in previous reseller discussions.
I do see at least three package adjustments that you could make which would save you money... as explained already... by making changes to *your* three packages in a way that will not affect their resource requirements at all but will lower your monthly bill.
Changes which would require site restructuring to compress into a smaller database allotment, which is an undertaking I'm not overly thrilled by to save a few bucks on the Visionary package.
If you were up to it, you could also take the larger offerings and use them to go out and try to gain some new clientele to increase your overall sales and thus your profits
I've never had to turn a prospective hosting client away due to package sizes, and I've never knowingly had anyone be disinterested for that reason. Besides, profits would not be increased, technically. The margin would still be down, just more of less would be added to the mix. But the old plan was no deterrance in that respect, so the same "more" has to be compared new vs. old, and old still comes out ahead with a greater profit margin.
If FutureQuest tried to undercut all of the other hosts "just cuz of the dollar sign", we'd already be out of business.
That's the same sort of bad analogy that was prevalent in the original thread... It's the same exact **** service! You're comparing services from two different entities, where the service itself -- the hosting -- is not at all the same.
Time, providing you include action, will tell if it is worse...
I've already outlined in the spreadhseet how it will turn out, with or without action, and it's worse either way. How much worse is the only question.
But the thing that keeps getting lost in these threads is that my primary gripe is not the change in pricing. That happens. My complaint is how things were handled, and I'm not about to shut up on behalf of those who're tired of hearing it (those who I've heard from privately are 100% in support of what I've said) until there's some acknowledgement of the concern and an intention to do better next time around. I'm still a FutureQuest customer, and I want to see things turn out for the best. I have no hidden agenda in any of this. If anyone's maniacal enough to look back through the two threads, you'll see I've been very up front and open about everything, even when my data was being dismissed for reasons beyond my comprehension.
Dan
In the name of character development, I think we need to give each a special name.
I suggest Tit for Dan
And Tat for Deb
And for Bob W. "for" might be a good solution to represent throwing himself into the middle.
:dopey:
Can someone pass the popcorn please?
cindik
01-09-2005, 12:20 AM
Can someone pass the popcorn please?
Stove popped, right here! Butter?
Are you suggesting withholding such services from clients who already have their hosting taken care of elsewhere? If so, then that's what I would deem a lousy business decision. If not, then it is deceptive to overcharge for the resold services, unless the client has been made aware of the cheaper alternative.
Frankly, I'm rather offended at the implied suggestion that I compromise my morals in order to see how the changes are for the better. Maybe perturbed is a better word. I respectfully disagree.
FutureQuest will not teach a client how to build their web site nor will we do it for them.
FutureQuest will not encourage a client to call us for support.
FutureQuest will not register a client's domain name for them.
FutureQuest will not support the client in any way if they are resold and therefore the total responsibility of support is up the reseller.
FutureQuest does not "live next door" to the majority of their clients and does not offer any face to face consultations like many of the resellers can provide.
It is VERY POSSIBLE, REASONABLE, and RECOMMENDED for a reseller to offer a client more of what they need than FutureQuest provides. If the reseller is doing these types of things for their clients then the reseller has every right to charge for those services. It's not deceptive in any way, shape, or form.
If the reseller is selling the package and giving NO support..then yes, they'd need to charge less and still might struggle. But since FutureQuest's resellers tend to (and are supposed to by the agreement) offer all of the hosting support to their client, I believe it's reasonable that the reseller be paid as much as FutureQuest is..thus the ability to charge the same as FutureQuest does...or...if the reseller is providing more than FutureQuest is providing, it is then reasonable to charge more.
There is so much more a reseller can do for their clients than what FutureQuest can do. Tons more. Those resellers absolutely should be paid for their time and energy for doing it.
If you find that deceptive or wrong in any way..then I'd have to say reselling probably isn't the best venture for you. Otherwise, I have to absolutely encourage you to evaluate what exactly it is you are already offering your clients and ensure you are charging accordingly for it. If you really are offering less than we are, then less you should charge. But if you're not...then you shouldn't be.
Doubtful. Package size has never been an issue for me or my clients, but I've already said that numerous times. This can go either way... a quick forum search will show you that FutureQuest as a whole is faced with a large number of clients that required more. From where I sit, demanded more.
I said in the previous thread that, in my opinion, any reseller who feels their service is as good or better than FQ's is fooling themselves. They might be able to offer extras (which I believe to be primarily nonsense, as explained above), but they can't match the collective knowledge, staff availability, and degree of tools at hand. Just ain't gonna happen. I know I'm not alone in this sentiment, because it's been echoed by numerous others in previous reseller discussions. You may not be alone with this feeling but you are incorrect. I wouldn't know the first thing about designing a flash site, nor would the majority of our team. We can make it so various languages work on the servers but don't ask us to program your site for you because that's not what we do. Nor do we have time to help each of our clients select their domain names etc etc etc etc. There's a HUGE market out there for resellers of clients that require more than the majority of hosts can even hope to offer but that a reseller can excel at. A LARGE number of our very best resellers do just that.
Bottom line, if the site is resold FutureQuest is doing NOTHING for the client it was resold to outside of ensuring the servers and the tools on the servers work properly and supporting the reseller if the reseller has a question. Everything else the client requires is for you to provide and if you provide it well you certainly need to charge for it...hence 50% of the total cost of the package is for doing just that so why not charge it if you're going to be doing it at least that much?
Changes which would require site restructuring to compress into a smaller database allotment, which is an undertaking I'm not overly thrilled by to save a few bucks on the Visionary package. You had 6 databases with the Prospector Package. You'd have 6 Databases now if you downgraded to the Pioneer. I don't see a need to make any changes at all unless you already found use for the two extra databases... I've never had to turn a prospective hosting client away due to package sizes, You have in fact had packages go over their disk space allotments and either corrected it allowing FutureQuest to remove the extra fees or gotten snagged by having to pay the extra fees. Increased package sizes have helped to prevent that situation even further especially for the several resellers that were running into that problem a LOT. That's the same sort of bad analogy that was prevalent in the original thread... It's the same exact **** service! You're comparing services from two different entities, where the service itself -- the hosting -- is not at all the same. Just as our core hosting services are not the same, our support is not the same either. Therein lies my point. Your core hosting service may be the same as FutureQuest's (thus 50% of the total cost must be charged because it's what we're charging you for it) but your support services may be very different and may offer more than what we offer.... if it is the same as, or more than, what we offer then you should be able to honestly charge the same as or more than we charge ( the other 50% ). I've already outlined in the spreadhseet how it will turn out, with or without action, and it's worse either way. How much worse is the only question. Ok. Then I'm sorry that this is going to turn out worse for you. That certainly wasn't the intended outcome. I hope the future turns out different than how you are predicting it..but if it it doesn't that would be a true shame. I'll try to avoid offering suggestions for improvement any further as it appears that's not your goal. My complaint is how things were handled, and I'm not about to shut up on behalf of those who're tired of hearing it (those who I've heard from privately are 100% in support of what I've said) until there's some acknowledgement of the concern and an intention to do better next time around. Then I'd ask that you and the others you speak of re-read the many posts to see that it has been acknowledged several times, explained, and apologized for. Again, I acknowledge it. Apologize that it had to be how it was. Wont bother explaining it again. And assure you, as always, that FutureQuest is constantly working toward ways of improving issues that cause problems for our clients.
Deb
-
DogAndPony
01-09-2005, 01:20 AM
And for Bob W. "for" might be a good solution to represent throwing himself into the middle.*chuckle*
http://www.thoughtnozzle.com/images/propellorhead.gif
(I'm promoting my new smiley...)
...Bob
Bob "for" West
- not to be confused with Bob "for" Apples
You haven't disagreed with anything, respectfully or otherwise... Let me repeat:
Are you suggesting withholding such services from clients who already have their hosting taken care of elsewhere?
What you're saying is those extras (i.e. value added services) warrant a premium being charged by the reseller, but what I'm saying is that unless those services are withheld from clients only wanting design-related services, which would be roughly the dumbest business plan I've ever heard of, it's more like value being taken away than value being added. Either way, it sucks for someone.
Or, you could go the route of offering discounted rates on design services in conjunction with resold hosting, but that gets right back to the crux of the problem, which is the changes resulted in decreased profit margin. I just don't see any positive explanation...
You had 6 databases with the Prospector Package. You'd have 6 Databases now if you downgraded to the Pioneer.
Those are all accounted for by the downgrades reflected in the spreadsheet I posted. I was referring to the only remaining savings being on my own sites -- the only ones where margin is irrelevant -- if I were to downgrade them to Visionary, which is what I thought you had suggested.
Just as our core hosting services are not the same, our support is not the same either.
I disagree. The support is the same, or at least should be. What differs is the reseller's ability to add extra to the table, but that really just complicates the picture with extraneous info. Unless you're prepared to factor in all the costs and benefits to combining design and hosting services, and how they interrelate, I'm going to stick with my assertion that the relevant service (support) is one and the same, with the only difference being the degree to which it is successfully carried out. My background in economics, business administration, accounting, and budget preparation and reporting says you'll have a very difficult time proving otherwise.
Apologize that it had to be how it was.
That's not the same thing. What I saw was you explaining why it was done the way it is, and why our input could not be received, but never acknowledging that things could've been done different or better. There have been numerous comments on what those improvable items were, to which I would suggest you re-read the many posts...
Dan
What you're saying is those extras (i.e. value added services) warrant a premium being charged by the reseller, but what I'm saying is that unless those services are withheld from clients only wanting design-related services, which would be roughly the dumbest business plan I've ever heard of, it's more like value being taken away than value being added. Either way, it sucks for someone.
Or, you could go the route of offering discounted rates on design services in conjunction with resold hosting, but that gets right back to the crux of the problem, which is the changes resulted in decreased profit margin. I just don't see any positive explanation... On this point.. I guess we're talking about two different things and just don't have a clue what the other is talking about.
Just to be clear -- in no way am I suggesting that you overcharge, undercharge, or deceptively charge.
Whatever it takes for you to do none of those things is what I personally feel you should do. Those are all accounted for by the downgrades reflected in the spreadsheet I posted. I was referring to the only remaining savings being on my own sites -- the only ones where margin is irrelevant -- if I were to downgrade them to Visionary, which is what I thought you had suggested. I'm not suggesting you downgrade anything to the Visionary, and my numbers didn't either. Glad that's clearer now. I disagree. The support is the same, or at least should be. What differs is the reseller's ability to add extra to the table, but that really just complicates the picture with extraneous info. Unless you're prepared to factor in all the costs and benefits to combining design and hosting services, and how they interrelate, I'm going to stick with my assertion that the relevant service (support) is one and the same, with the only difference being the degree to which it is successfully carried out. My background in economics, business administration, accounting, and budget preparation and reporting says you'll have a very difficult time proving otherwise. On this point.. I guess we're talking about two different things and just don't have a clue what the other is talking about. One time I see you saying there's no comparison and on the other hand you say comparing results in it being the same.
You say here: " with the only difference being the degree to which it is successfully carried out." and that in and of itself is a very big difference to be considered with support. If it's carried out to a "strong degree" then it's worth more. But that's just my opinion and the opinion for the sake of this thread. If you feel your support is the same, then I'd suggest charging the same for it that we do. If you feel it's less, then charge less. If you feel it's worth more, then charge more. Totally up to you and I have no opinion one way or the other as to what you should do since only you and your clients know what your worth is. My only suggestion is for you to do what's fair for you and your clients as best as you can.
That's not the same thing. What I saw was you explaining why it was done the way it is, and why our input could not be received, but never acknowledging that things could've been done different or better. There have been numerous comments on what those improvable items were, to which I would suggest you re-read the many posts...
1) Tell resellers first -- I agreed that this is something I DESPERATELY wanted to do, should've been done, unfortunately couldn't be done, and if I can in the future absolutely will, noting that it's still not always possible :( I have apologized several times.
2) Apologize that FutureQuest could not give more to everyone while ensuring it cost less for everyone. I have and do apologize.
3) Not try to make assumptions about how other people can, will, or should run their business. I have an inherent problem of trying to advise as best I can to make good out of what may seem sour. I'm open to people keeping what they like and throwing out the rest. I just like to offer positive options and ideas. I apologize to anyone who was offended by that and you personally Dan. I will not say that'll I'll never do it again because it is a part of me. I just wont ever do it with you again :)
4) Apologize that your revenues will now be decreased and that this new plan makes your reselling worse all of the way around no matter what. ... If in fact you can't find a way to make it a success I already have and do apologize.
5) Apologize for not viewing your chart. I do apologize if you felt you were ignored. I do not, however, feel you were ignored or that the numbers were ignored since the time I took to go over each of your packages resulted in the same conclusion/facts/numbers as your chart came up with. Nevertheless, by telling you I didn't feel the need to view your excel chart I offended you and for that I am honestly sorry.
6) Say that this plan is just worse. I can't and wont because it's not for a vast majority and from where I sit I do have to look toward the majority while doing the very best I can do for the minority in the process.
7) Admit I'm lying or delusional about the number of people that are benefiting from these changes. Nope. Can't do that either because it wouldn't be true. There really are thousands of clients benefiting a great deal.
Deb
- Will work for tag lines...
Delicately stepping into the fray:
Notification that the $60 special would be going away was on the site for quite some time. 60 days I believe. -Deb
This strikes me as a bit disingenuous. FutureQuest did not inform resellers of the impending change, I did. I wasn't echoing some communication received from FutureQuest, I was concerned about a notification shown on the reseller package page on the FQ web site that I just happened to notice. This is a bit like reading about your company being sued in the paper before hearing from the attorneys. Sure, those resellers watching the forums closely (a small percentage by Deb's evaluation) might have seen the post a few weeks before changes went into effect, but there was not the implied lengthy disclosure (implied by the use of "for quite some time" language).
It is quite obvious that Deb and Dan are banging their heads against brick walls (or maybe each others' heads). What should have started as an open and frank discussion didn't. The consequences are what we see here (and in prior threads). Can I accept the moderate price changes? Yes, I can. Can Deb accept that FutureQuest does need to modify its disclosure policy? Apparently not.
Now, let's look at Dan in a different light (I'm using the numbers he supplied). Until FQ changed its reseller program, Dan was a client paying FutureQuest an average of $220 per month (that's likely more than most clients pay FutureQuest per YEAR). His yearly cost was roughly $2,660. Under the new program, Dan saw his renewal costs increase nearly $300.00. Now, can anyone genuinely say that they would be unconcerned about such an increase?
Dan is adapting to the changes as suggested. His new yearly cost will drop to $2,469 ($220 less), BUT his profit margin is eroded by $107. Total "saved" under the new program = $113. We haven't factored into this equation TIME. I will take time for Dan to reshuffle accounts and explain pricing changes to his clients. Once you factor in time spent, I am confident the $113 "savings" disappears. So, Dan's not seeing a savings and has an administrative headache. In addition, Dan is downgrading packages, meaning FQ is likely making less profit. How is this a win for FutureQuest?
As a reseller, Dan has a very real potential of bringing more business to FutureQuest, i.e. paying FQ more money. After all, he has brought a fair amount of business to FQ already. Reseller program aside, doesn't FQ owe something more than an excuse to its big spending client?
I'm pretty sure that Dan can cope with a necessary price increase. However, Dan has built his business around a service that Deb has stated to be in danger of termination. Wouldn't you be concerned if a service you were at one time investing $220/month in was in danger of ceasing to exist?
Wouldn't you be concerned if you were told that the only reason this service you were paying more than $2,500/yr for wasn't cancelled was because of some clever "behind-the-scenes" reorganizing (that may or may not really fix the problem)? Would you be concerned if, rather than working WITH YOU, you were implicated as a burden to your service provider?
If you are a reseller and fail to identify with these concerns, then one or more of the following may be true:
1.) the cost of the package really doesn't matter to you, or
2.) you do not intend to include FutureQuest as an integral part of your long-term business plan, or
3.) you don't have a long-term business plan, or
4.) you work for FutureQuest, or
5.) you want to work for FutureQuest, or
6.) you have an inherent faith in the infallibility of FQ's decisions
This is business, not an arguing match. There are clear implications from this and related threads that resellers and potential resellers need to pay attention to. In the same way that successful businesses try to foster good relations with their channel partners, so too does FQ need to try to foster good relations with its channel partners and a BIG part of this is open communication. FutureQuest is a dam* good hosting company from an end-user perspective. Whether FQ is a good reseller partner is currently up in the air, because it takes more to be a good channel partner in the hosting business than simply reliability. As I have said previously, I very much want to see FQ as a leading partner in the hosting industry, but we're currently going in the wrong direction (in my surely to be debated opinion). This CAN be turned around, both in the short and long term. My primary concern is Deb's refusal to change FQ's disclosure policy. Even if resellers were forced to sign an NDA, it would still be better than where we currently sit.
Matt
- surveying the mess left behind, leaves the fray
MarkM
01-09-2005, 04:59 AM
Dan...
> Doubtful. Package size has never been an issue for me or my clients, but I've already said that numerous times.
Deb
>This can go either way... a quick forum search will show you that FutureQuest as a whole is faced with a large number of clients that required more. From where I sit, demanded more.
I'm with Deb on this one.
I haven't used up our increased capacity by a long shot, but now I can go ahead with my plans and not be stressed about reaching the red (more $$) zone.
The problem I see here is not Deb or Dan.
Whatever way either of you charge for your services is your own biz.
Deciding on what either of you charge has to do with so many different factors, one just has to hope that the person doing the books and setting prices has taken everything into consideration.
For both yer sakes here's to hoping you've got all bases covered!
Now... If FQ needed to issue a price hike to cover rising costs in providing consulting services to resellers, should I as a non-reseller be upset? I guess I should be, but I'd swallow it. Why?
1)Because I understand that FQ needs to provide to resellers interests as best as they can ...jees as far as I know, maybe I've only got this great package deal, because the resellers provided a volume that FQ could get their own discounts..
Does it matter to me? No I'ts none of my biz...
What is my biz, is that I respect FQ's decisions...
From here, Dan, it seems like some of your clients are just riding on your coat- tail. If they're not getting any value added services, and don't need extra space to develop their site, why don't you ship em off to the dime a dozen outfits, and keep FQ for your value added customers?
Blame it on your choice of clients!
Mark
I've lost $$ from some, and done half-way decent with others. If it is an option, one should choose clients carefully. When I used to landscape I would sell myself too cheap - Those who would chisel me down would also complain about the littlest thing. - forget telling them about price increases!
When I finally began to ask more realistic prices for my efforts, I found that there were plenty of clients where price was not an issue. They were also more appreciative about the services I offered.
Ok here it is.
I've already apologized and explained SEVERAL times over again to those who feel jilted. For this reason, I'm not going to spend any more time typing it out for a 4th, 10th, 20th time or whatever the count is. I'm starting to feel "unsorry" because feeling "sorry" seems to only work against me :P
If you absolutely cannot work with the system then yes, a different system may be required for you with another host. If you think you can work with it by all means go for it.
If you feel FutureQuest has cheated or lied to you then I would recommend leaving because no one should be with a host they cannot trust.
If you feel that FutureQuest did the best they could for you then rest assured FutureQuest will continue to do so and will constantly strive toward improving even further.
If you expect FutureQuest to create a NEW (not updated or different or changed) POLICY that would state that we must discuss all of our decisions with Resellers first, it wont happen.
If you expect FutureQuest to work toward 'early warning' well, we are, but it still wont turn into a POLICY because in this VERY FAST PACED ever changing industry I can't guarantee it'll happen. Thus the reason no policy or promise has ever been given before, but also why we try to ensure no negative issues will have an immediate impact.
There's some stuff going into the CNC, and some new stuff being worked on for QuestAdmin, and some new stuff going into the servers, and some new stuff for filters, and some new stuff for mailing lists, and as soon as any of the items are completed they are going to be in our clients hands for usage...reseller or not. Just as it has always been before. It's not because we don't care about our resellers. It's because in this industry everyone needs it NOW and I cannot keep it from the majority of our clients while the resellers talk about it or update their pages for it. Where it is going to directly affect an existing client of yours in a negative way we'll make sure you have as much notice as possible. In this case you had a minimum of 30 days with as much as a year - noting that I still agree it would've been nice to be able to offer more early warning.
For FutureQuest and the majority this plan, in its very early stages, appears to be a success, while noting that there are some that felt jilted due to the annual costs and lack of early communication. Time will tell us more concerning the long term success and those that feel jilted will tell us "how jilted" by whether or not they accept the explanations and apology provided and stick around or by leaving.
25 pages of this is more than enough however.
So heres the Bottom line:
FutureQuest has offered you the most it had to offer and did so in such a way that lowered the costs for the majority. I do wish a better warning could have been given to the resellers but due to circumstances already explained several times it couldn't so the most we could do is apologize, especially to those who find it impossible to see a savings or an opportunity for the future.
It's now up to you to take it or leave it.
It's up to FutureQuest to continue working on new features for this new year so that we can continue doing the best we can for the entire community of site owners that depend on us to service them and their web sites. Which is exactly what I intend to do.
Deb
- To slow down or to refuse change and surprises is to die in this business.
DogAndPony
01-09-2005, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Deb - It's now up to you to take it or leave it.I'm sure you wanted to avoid using language like this if at all possible, Deb, but I'm glad you finally did, even though it may have been painful.
I've always been the kind of person who strives to maintain a "The Customer is Always Right" kind of stance, but over a couple of decades, I have come to the conclusion that it's not always the best policy. There are just times when you and the client aren't a good match for each other -- which FQ intelligently acknowledges as fact throughout their communications, rather than unwisely trying to be all things to all people. There are also times when the client is simply more trouble than they're worth. Sometimes it is because of an incompatibility in needs/abilities, sometimes due to a mismatch in philosophies, sometimes because the client has unrealistic expectations and/or because the client is a malcontent, and a few times when the client is unfortunately a deadbeat.
Now I tend to be more assertive with clients and talk more openly about possible incompatibilities earlier in the relationship (or before it even gets started), so that expectations aren't built up over time, making repairs more difficult.
(I'm definitely not saying that you haven't done that; just mentioning it as part of my process.)
And while I may be more tolerant of incompatibilities during times when revenues are down, I feel I've benefitted -- and my clients have benefitted -- from laying it on the line, or just plain kicking a little butt now and then.
I see this as being akin to a couple of the points that Lencioni makes in his "Temptations" book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0787944335), albeit regarding clients instead of employees: "desires to ... consistently remain popular ... [and] constantly strive for an atmosphere of total harmony." (Haven't read the book, just the Amazon blurbs.)
While I absolutely *despise* unnecessary conflict, I've come to find that there are times when a little friction is necessary and even beneficial.
But then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already obviously know... I'm just trying to say that I support your stand.
Now... I for one would certainly love to see this topic go away. But, as we live in an "open society" here at FQ, users are free to speak their minds.
And that means that locking every thread on the subject isn't possible, practical or desireable. And since vBulletin apparently doesn't have an "ignore" feature, I and others will probably continue to see threads and posts on the subject that rehash the same information/points over and over. So be it. Hopefully, posters will eventually realize that simple repetition doesn't do anyone any good.
I would hope that by saying what you've said, that "eventually" will be hastened.
On the other hand, I would hope that when there is some change or new information or fresh, constructive suggestion on the subject that needs to be discussed, that users and/or FQ would post it and discuss it freely. And having been in the forums for a while, I'm sure that will happen.
I've said it before, and others have said it, too, but it bears saying again: I feel you've gone above and beyond in the amount of time and typing you've spent dealing with this change. You've done some heavy lifting when it comes to offering specific advice on how to make the plan work -- in general, and for specific users. You've been willing to apologize for various things far more than is usually seen from the head of a company... some of which you're probably right to apologize for, but some for which it seems to me you didn't really have to. (Heck, access to a CEO just doesn't happen like this anyway.)
You've done a great job of detailing the plan changes, and explaining FQ's position... with a kind of patience that makes me think you could be the freakish love child of Mother Teresa and a visiting member of an advanced alien race.
http://www.thoughtnozzle.com/images/fqforumanims/angel.gif:cool:
Thanks... And Calcutta barada nikto.
...Bob
Bob West
- A guy named "Nobel" called for you. Something about a "piece of pie"?
Hopefully, posters will eventually realize that simple repetition doesn't do anyone any good.
I couldn't disagree more. If not for the issue being forced, there never would have been any awareness and acknowledgement that things could have been handled better, so the situation likely would have repeated itself.
If it's repetitive input that you find wasteful, then your entire post didn't exactly add anything new to the discussion... We already knew you support Deb's position and would rather see the thread(s) come to an end.
If you want something new to comment on, why has no one responded to Matt's last post, 4 messages up the page? That's about as good a summary of the situation as anyone could put together. I can only hope people have read it through in detail and are letting it sink in -- I know it's generally a lot tougher to comment on something you agree with than to break down what you disagree with.
From here, Dan, it seems like some of your clients are just riding on your coat- tail. If they're not getting any value added services, and don't need extra space to develop their site, why don't you ship em off to the dime a dozen outfits, and keep FQ for your value added customers?
Mark, I don't follow your reasoning at all. None of my clients are problematic, so shipping them off would just further erode profits. Riding my coat tails seems like a very strange way of looking at it... That implies a conscious decision to not change to something else, but since I haven't yet passed along any price increases, that doesn't compute.
When I finally began to ask more realistic prices for my efforts, I found that there were plenty of clients where price was not an issue.
Yet another analogy that doesn't quite hit the mark... No pun intended. :) Your landscaping service and pricing is held up against two things: what you offer and what the competition offers. Intangibles have to be factored in, because the most basic service -- the actual landscaping -- is not identical. Not true with resold hosting, where the service itself is identical.
Let me see if I can explain things a bit more clearly with a new analogy...
Let's say I go to Costco and buy one of their hot dogs for $1.50, then go out front and try selling it for $2.00. How many takers do you think I'll get? How about if I drop the price down to $1.50? Still none... But if I go down to $1.00, perhaps some trusting soul will see the value to be had. That is the situation relevant to resold hosting. The service is the same, and it can be had directly from the source, so the only true comparative value is cost. I could dance a jig outside Costco and flash passers-by, but it wouldn't add any value to the hot dog.
Now, if that same Costco did not sell any pre-cooked, ready to eat food, I could go into the frozen foods section, buy a huge pack of dogs, fire up a grill out front, and sell them to my heart's content ... until security came along and told me where to shove my hot dogs... That is the situation comparable to the analogies we keep getting in these threads. The model of competition has been changed dramatically, so the comparative pricing no longer holds.
Bob W., if being unbiased is of any importance to you, I would hope you'd attack the repetitively bad analogies with the same disdain as the repetitive complaints by resellers...
Dan
Now, if that same Costco did not sell any pre-cooked, ready to eat food, I could go into the frozen foods section, buy a huge pack of dogs, fire up a grill out front, and sell them to my heart's content ... until security came along and told me where to shove my hot dogs... That is the situation comparable to the analogies we keep getting in these threads. The model of competition has been changed dramatically, so the comparative pricing no longer holds. Just to be clear for all of the FutureQuest resellers reading....
FutureQuest does not have a hot dog stand nor any desire to begin cooking the hot dogs... so in no way would we send out the guards to kick you out for doing so. On the contrary, we find that the ability to "cook and dress the dog" is exactly what makes the majority of you so valuable to the clientele you are able to attract and thus we encourage you to continue cooking hot dogs and developing all of the special sauces you can think of to continue earning an extra income while enhancing your frozen hot dog sales for those clients that just can't figure out how to cook a hot dog by themselves.
Deb
- Maybe Monty will hook us up with the RV for a huge Weenie Roast!
cindik
01-09-2005, 07:53 PM
And since vBulletin apparently doesn't have an "ignore" feature,
Oh, but it does. View the user's profile. Click "Add username to Your Ignore List"
MarkM
01-09-2005, 09:07 PM
Your right there Dan, I'm lousy at analogies!
I'll try again...
riding coat-tail - Reseller offers a discounted FQ service.
Client handles further services with out needing help.
(This is the sort of deal I would offer a capable friend)
The other part I was trying to say was that the highly competitive world that FQ lives in doesn't have to be like that for a reseller.
I would certainly not do reselling if it meant living on a economical razors edge.
I see reselling as a potentially lucrative sideline that could be cultivated into something more.
I would be insane to consciously venture into the low profit margin cut-throat bulk reselling arena.
I am concerned though, of the potential for profits to get eaten up by service requests, as I know that I could not base my earnings solely from the discounted profits I receive.
In this way, Dan, I appreciate learning from your situation, though I still think it's your choice how you run your biz.
I think you will find a workaround.
See what your clients think of the changes.
You can honestly tell them that you did everything possible in their financial interests.
I bet a whole bunch of folks here will back you up on that!
Tell 'em like it is, Dan
You never really know, how things will turn out unless you try.
All the best,
Mark
On the contrary, we find that the ability to "cook and dress the dog" is exactly what makes the majority of you so valuable to the clientele you are able to attract and thus we encourage you to continue cooking hot dogs and developing all of the special sauces you can think of to continue earning an extra income while enhancing your frozen hot dog sales for those clients that just can't figure out how to cook a hot dog by themselves.
Deb, I don't think you were intending on doing so, but you just reinforced my point. What you explained above is going back to the bad-analogy 2nd situation I explained, which is different services being offered. FQ's cooked hot dogs on the one hand, versus generic uncooked hot dogs on the other that can be made up in many different ways. The more this disagreement progresses, the more I think the primary reason is because one side of the debate keeps seeing a very key element erroneously.
I would certainly not do reselling if it meant living on a economical razors edge.
That's plenty reasonable.
You can honestly tell them that you did everything possible in their financial interests.
I bet a whole bunch of folks here will back you up on that!
I haven't appreciated all the attempts at humor in these threads, but that one hit the spot. :)
You never really know, how things will turn out unless you try.
One thing that has been assumed by several people is that I have no intention of trying to make this work. I'm not exactly sure where that came from... I've already changed my rates to more or less keep things where they were margin-wise, as reflected in the spreadsheet I posted, which would seem to disprove any such notion. My objection has been that things are for the worse with the changes -- arguably for FQ, the reseller, and for the reseller's clients all at once (as explained several times previously) -- not that things can't continue along. Just because they can continue, doesn't mean they aren't worse, however.
Dan
MarkM
01-09-2005, 11:46 PM
My objection has been that things are for the worse with the changes ---
Well, only time will tell, as nobody in the internet technology industry can predict with accuracy what it'll really be like, even in a years time.
The internet experience is the nearest thing to living in a hypothetical environment.
It is barely real, existing only in a micro space of time.
Disclaimers like...
`such and such may change at any time'- are very real on the internet.
Mark
Dank,
With all due respect and I mean this very much---particularly since you have done good work for me in the past and likely will again in the future---and I like you...
GET OVER IT ALREADY!
Best,
Betsy
--it's time. I'm out of popcorn.
MarkM
01-10-2005, 12:10 AM
GET OVER IT ALREADY!
Betsy Betsy Betsy, what happened?
I thought of you as a sympathic person?
Don't you know that what you say can be very hard to do?
One day it will be YOUR TURN to suffer!!!
Mark
snortle chuff
Betsy Betsy Betsy, what happened?
I'm out of popcorn.
DogAndPony
01-10-2005, 01:11 AM
You get a gold star for consistency, Dan.
Keep on truckin'.
...Bob
Bob West
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.