SOHO and SMB Cloud Storage Recommendations
-
@Dashrender said:
I'd love for you to show an example of the bell pricing curve in the consumer world.
That would be hard to find because generally the only factor in consumer products is quantity. You don't get network effects, normally, nor do you need special features or have extra usage scenarios based on number of participants.
You do find the inverse with services like Netflix where one user is $12/u, two are $6, three are $5, four are $4 and then five are $6 and six are $5.
-
@Dashrender said:
Those solid numbers are a killer to many of use. Look at NiNite. 100 devices is X, but if you have 110, you're screwed paying for the 250 device level.
It's these kinds of mega leaps that I find the most frustrating. Tons of people find themselves in that sweet spot between 100 and 250. Of course the math can be done and typically in these types of situations show that if you are 85-90% the way to the next price break, that it's often the same or better to buy yourself up to the next price level.
I've down this for years when I supported 80 users. It was often cheaper to purchase 100 licenses of something at the 100 price level than it was to buy 80 at the 50 price level.
I agree, mega leaps suck big time. They only exist to make pricing and licensing easy not to make pricing sense. JetBrains and Atlassian did that too, if you look.
Actually of all of these, MS is by a huge degree the best because they never charge by anything but per user. The scales are very fluid.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'd love for you to show an example of the bell pricing curve in the consumer world.
That would be hard to find because generally the only factor in consumer products is quantity. You don't get network effects, normally, nor do you need special features or have extra usage scenarios based on number of participants.
You do find the inverse with services like Netflix where one user is $12/u, two are $6, three are $5, four are $4 and then five are $6 and six are $5.
Exactly, but just like the other examples, the higher the number of users, the greater the demand on resources until you reach a certain level, let's say Netflix for example, after 4 people, you probably end up seeing more people in that same home watching the same thing (same device) so the 5 person while you may have an account for them, they are probably not actually using it very much.
-
@Dashrender I get what you're saying there, and yeah, sometimes eating a few unused licenses for the better bottom line works. Once the plateaus are in larger increments, that gets a lot more difficult to do.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@Dashrender I get what you're saying there, and yeah, sometimes eating a few unused licenses for the better bottom line works. Once the plateaus are in larger increments, that gets a lot more difficult to do.
So what are you saying? The plateaus are there to screw us? Because they can?
Now I haven't seen that be the case in O365, other than the 300 user issue. I guess that gets back to the OP. He's unhappy because MS caps the non E plans at 300 users, instead forcing them to the more expensive E series plans. But once you're over 300, everyone is on the same playing field until you get into an EA.
-
@Dashrender said:
So what are you saying? The plateaus are there to screw us? Because they can?
Obviously. The entire concept of the pricing exists to charge as much as customers will pay while not incurring extra cost. It's just normal demand pricing. The vendor charges at will, customers buy at will. If the customers continue to buy, they have demonstrated to the vendor that the pricing is acceptable which encourages the vendor to maintain or raise prices.
-
@Dashrender said:
Now I haven't seen that be the case in O365, other than the 300 user issue. I guess that gets back to the OP. He's unhappy because MS caps the non E plans at 300 users, instead forcing them to the more expensive E series plans. But once you're over 300, everyone is on the same playing field until you get into an EA.
Everyone is on the same playing field, always - because customers can choose to manipulate their number of seats as they see fit. They always have the option of hiring fewer people, switching which tool sets that they use, only rolling out O365 to certain users. It's the same field and customers choose which tiers to buy at.
-
LOL - Yup.. and all we can do is piss and moan about it when we find ourselves at the 110 make when the next plateau is at 250
-
@Dashrender said:
Now I haven't seen that be the case in O365, other than the 300 user issue.
But that is where you are seeing it. The customers for whom they tend to be the most "stuck" on the product - smaller companies have less money and are more likely to be dissuaded into going elsewhere because they can't leverage the full value. And larger customers are more likely to have better business decision making skills. MS has the highest cost in the organizations most likely to be "deploy by mandate" rather than evaluating specific needs.
-
@Dashrender said:
LOL - Yup.. and all we can do is piss and moan about it when we find ourselves at the 110 make when the next plateau is at 250
Not really, only if management deems this to be non-negotiable. But normally you are free to stop using the product or find an alternative. The vendor needs to carefully price themselves to remain competitive and sensible everywhere within the plateaus or they risk encouraging the customers to pay to move to a different product.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Now I haven't seen that be the case in O365, other than the 300 user issue. I guess that gets back to the OP. He's unhappy because MS caps the non E plans at 300 users, instead forcing them to the more expensive E series plans. But once you're over 300, everyone is on the same playing field until you get into an EA.
Everyone is on the same playing field, always - because customers can choose to manipulate their number of seats as they see fit. They always have the option of hiring fewer people, switching which tool sets that they use, only rolling out O365 to certain users. It's the same field and customers choose which tiers to buy at.
I don't agree. If a 10,000 person company is deploying O365, I suppose they could choose to only roll it out to 290 users so they could get that price point, but that really seems silly.
But moving this back to the company in the 300 user range, I'm right back to the plateau problem.
Today my company is 280 users and I'm paying $12.50/u and we are content with the services. But I get a spike in business that takes me to 350 user.. suddenly I have to start paying $20/u or $2100/month more (just for the 280 old users) because of the business growth, (while assuming I don't need/want any of the additional services offered.Do I feel there is a point that MS should force people to the higher plan? Frankly, in this case NO. I think that bell curve has already been reached and is back on the down slope at 300 users for actual cost per user.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
LOL - Yup.. and all we can do is piss and moan about it when we find ourselves at the 110 make when the next plateau is at 250
Not really, only if management deems this to be non-negotiable. But normally you are free to stop using the product or find an alternative. The vendor needs to carefully price themselves to remain competitive and sensible everywhere within the plateaus or they risk encouraging the customers to pay to move to a different product.
Well of course. My saying that all we can do is piss and moan is based on an assumption that I can't or won't move for whatever reason.
The other reality in this situation is that many will simply choose to not manage those few that go over until such time that the extra management of those few is greater than the extra cost of purchasing the next plateau (and 10 may just be that number in the case of NiNite, but maybe it's 30, who knows).
-
@Dashrender said:
I don't agree. If a 10,000 person company is deploying O365, I suppose they could choose to only roll it out to 290 users so they could get that price point, but that really seems silly.
The point is that being a 10,000 person company is completely their choice. It never something a business is forced to be. They both have the choice of how many licensing to purchase AND how many people to hire.
Number of staff that companies hire is completely choice. In the case of a company of 10,000 they may have made that decision long ago, but they made it and they retain those people by choice day to day.
-
@Dashrender said:
Today my company is 280 users and I'm paying $12.50/u and we are content with the services. But I get a spike in business that takes me to 350 user.. suddenly I have to start paying $20/u or $2100/month more (just for the 280 old users) because of the business growth, (while assuming I don't need/want any of the additional services offered.
That's one way to look at it. Or you could look at it as @Carnival-Boy pointed out that you've been getting "special pricing" with limited features specifically for very small companies and you are about to breach the threshold into a full company. It's not that suddenly you pay "a lot", it is equally that you suddenly "stop getting special treatment as a very small company." I know that the result is the same, but it's the difference between feeling a new penalty versus being thankful for years of special benefits.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Today my company is 280 users and I'm paying $12.50/u and we are content with the services. But I get a spike in business that takes me to 350 user.. suddenly I have to start paying $20/u or $2100/month more (just for the 280 old users) because of the business growth, (while assuming I don't need/want any of the additional services offered.
That's one way to look at it. Or you could look at it as @Carnival-Boy pointed out that you've been getting "special pricing" with limited features specifically for very small companies and you are about to breach the threshold into a full company. It's not that suddenly you pay "a lot", it is equally that you suddenly "stop getting special treatment as a very small company." I know that the result is the same, but it's the difference between feeling a new penalty versus being thankful for years of special benefits.
I read this and one thing instantly popped into my head.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Or you could look at it as @Carnival-Boy pointed out that you've been getting "special pricing" with limited features specifically for very small companies and you are about to breach the threshold into a full company. It's not that suddenly you pay "a lot", it is equally that you suddenly "stop getting special treatment as a very small company." I know that the result is the same, but it's the difference between feeling a new penalty versus being thankful for years of special benefits.
If companies want to play that game, then they should really point out that fact. Pointing it out on our bill every month will make us completely prepared for a price change upon breaching a specific level. But a pricing plan like you posted earlier doesn't do that.. instead we get the feeling that now that we are bigger you feel that we suddenly make enough money to be able to afford to pay you more.
But as you mentioned they are just feelings either way.
The MS plan presentation is still the best though. You KNOW that 300 is the limit for the cheaper plans, and you clearly see the other advantages you get when you move to the Enterprise plans.
-
@Dashrender said:
But a pricing plan like you posted earlier doesn't do that.. instead we get the feeling that now that we are bigger you feel that we suddenly make enough money to be able to afford to pay you more.
But that is exactly what is happening. You no longer need special consideration for being a "start up" and now you are a full fledged company and can pay "viable company" prices.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Pricing that humps because the vendor adds features as the hump goes up is being deceptive in their offerings in a price list as Scott has presented it. Instead of realizing I'm getting extra stuff (do I even want it, Access for example) the simple list looks like just because I'm a big boy means I get punished.
So you feel that it is deceptive in a non-useful way to the vendor? I'm unsure what you feel is deceptive here. Where do you feel there is deception?
You're presentation doesn't indicate there are more features for the higher levels of users (but that might be only YOUR presentation, and not the one actually on the website like Microsoft's presentation of O365 - which clearly shows the additions per level of purchase.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
But a pricing plan like you posted earlier doesn't do that.. instead we get the feeling that now that we are bigger you feel that we suddenly make enough money to be able to afford to pay you more.
But that is exactly what is happening. You no longer need special consideration for being a "start up" and now you are a full fledged company and can pay "viable company" prices.
But we all know that that isn't always true. They've picked an arbitrary line... it might be true for some or even most, but definitely not all.
And and this point, we're just nitpicking.. I think we're pretty much on the same page now.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Pricing that humps because the vendor adds features as the hump goes up is being deceptive in their offerings in a price list as Scott has presented it. Instead of realizing I'm getting extra stuff (do I even want it, Access for example) the simple list looks like just because I'm a big boy means I get punished.
So you feel that it is deceptive in a non-useful way to the vendor? I'm unsure what you feel is deceptive here. Where do you feel there is deception?
You're presentation doesn't indicate there are more features for the higher levels of users (but that might be only YOUR presentation, and not the one actually on the website like Microsoft's presentation of O365 - which clearly shows the additions per level of purchase.
I get that. It's rare (but still correct) to call it deceptive in when it is in your favour. Like telling you I forget your birthday to cover for sneakily getting you a rainbow and unicorn decorated cake without you guessing.
