In response to David Smith's remark that:
>Despite the name, EnvironmentalStats is useful in just about
>all areas of
>statistics.
Bert Gunter wrote:
>If this is the case, why isn't this functionality already in
>S-Plus? Is it
>sensible marketing to say: "We have additional features that almost all
>users would find useful but which you must pay extra for?" I
>would have
>thought that "basic" features of interest to almost all users
>would be in
>the base product. Special modules with special features for
>subsets of users
>would be extra-cost add-ons.
I loudly echo his first question.
However, as an economist I fear I can see all too many answers to his
following question about Insightful's strategy.
Without giving a lecture, they're all basically directed at getting each
possible customer to pay what they (the customer) think the product is worth
-- "price discrimination", in economists' jargon.
That is why you will search the company's web-site in vain for anything
resembling a list price.
Clearly they have decided, correctly or otherwise, that in fact enough
people *will* pay $xxx for the basic product without worrying (at first?)
about the absence of the features in EnvironmentalStats, and that those who
do definitely need them can be persuaded to cough-up some more $xxx to get
them.
I agree that it seems silly (or at least inefficient) marketing, if only
from Insightful's point of view.
I hadn't heard of the module until it was pointed out to me, and if I *had*
spotted it myself I might have passed it over on the grounds that it
probably wouldn't be of interest, not being in the environmental field.
Why not call it S-Plus Extra, or similar?
(Note, though, that I enquired about the functionality -- thus marking me
out as someone who might well be happy to produce many $xxx to get it).
Julian Wells
OU Business School
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
United Kingdom
+44 1908 654658
|