←back to thread

No Calls

(keygen.sh)
1603 points ezekg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
focusedone ◴[] No.42726381[source]
Dear goodness will any other companies trying to sell to the company I work at please adopt this strategy. Please explain clearly what your product does, how you handle security, and what the enterprise license costs on the homepage.

Please do not harass us with calls and perpetual emails asking to schedule calls. If a call is what it takes to answer basic security and pricing questions, I loathe your company name before we've spoken and am very interested in doing business with anyone who *does* post that stuff online.

I do not understand why that's difficult, but it must be.

I wish I could use what this guy is selling.

replies(15): >>42726524 #>>42726658 #>>42727027 #>>42727075 #>>42727352 #>>42727520 #>>42727614 #>>42727630 #>>42727775 #>>42728038 #>>42728094 #>>42728337 #>>42728885 #>>42730021 #>>42735830 #
RobinL ◴[] No.42728337[source]
Schedule a call is a huge red flag to me because:

- it implies differential pricing, meaning they will charge you as much as possible both now and in the future (when you may be locked in)

- it usually obscures what the product actually does

Differential pricing is really pernicious because if the product happens to be super valuable to you, they're likely to find out and charge you even more

replies(6): >>42728575 #>>42728838 #>>42729353 #>>42729603 #>>42730386 #>>42731927 #
mbesto ◴[] No.42730386[source]
> Differential pricing is really pernicious because if the product happens to be super valuable to you, they're likely to find out and charge you even more

A super valuable solution to your problem is pernicious because...checks notes...a provider is trying to align their pricing with the value it creates with solving your problem.

I can't scratch my head hard enough.

replies(1): >>42730638 #
TeMPOraL ◴[] No.42730638[source]
> a provider is trying to align their pricing with the value it creates with solving your problem.

That's just an euphemism for "a provider is trying to capture for themselves all the value their product creates for you".

A real head scratcher. Perhaps has something to do with there being no point of buying if all (or even most) of the value flows back to the seller? Unless you're a nail wholesaler and are happy with 0.1% margins because you sell by truckloads anyway.

replies(2): >>42731392 #>>42736988 #
mbesto ◴[] No.42736988[source]
> "a provider is trying to capture for themselves all the value their product creates for you".

And what precisely is the problem? Obviously, we have incomplete information, but in efficient markets ALL providers all trying to capture the full value of the solution they provide. With infinite time, markets essentially adjust themselves towards this goal. As long as that number is 99.99% (meaning the buyer creates an additional 0.01% of economical value) it's still valuable for BOTH parties.

FWIW most SaaS businesses severely underprice their offering relative to the economic value they create.

replies(2): >>42739579 #>>42740814 #
1. RobinL ◴[] No.42739579[source]
There's a theory an economics that says that the more different prices a provider can charge the more of the surplus they capture (ie they can tilt that percentage towards the seller and away from the buyer).

Of course, if they're a monopoly provider and the buyer really needs it, they have to cough up. But generally there are substitute products. So the buyer would do well to look for an alternative that doesn't do differential pricing to capture more surplus for themselves.