Ham-Handed Marketing Exhibit #128

Let me say that I have nothing but admiration for Faithlife and its employees. The company publishes fine products, that are well worth the price. I have seen only excellent customer service (and have remarked on it here a number of times). That's why I am embarrassed for Faithlife when I see something like this:

This is from the page for the Reformed Silver base package.

Yes, we are all adults here who have been to the rodeo and are responsible for reading the details of what we buy. Yes, there is the disclaimer. No, I didn't buy it by accident. But the WHOLE works of James Ussher?; not just the works but the WHOLE works. And when the "expand" control is clicked, the customer sees ONE volume of 18. What would be so onerous about just listing the one volume that is included, by itself? This was a valuable and inexpensive (per resource) upgrade for me that didn't require any gimmicks.

Shouldn't there be a considerable spread of aesthetical distance between a very good company like Faithlife and, maybe carnival hawkers or funeral directors? And aren't product listings like this just plain silly?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SineNomine

It's not a gimmick. It's a feature. A good feature.

Every single time a resource from a standard collection is found in a base package, it is listed by the collection. Most of the time, more than one of the resources from a specific collection are in the base package. Listing things from collections helps facilitate easy volume identification, make it easier to compare base packages, and allow a reasonable standardization in the display of products. On the whole, it's quite helpful.

But if you expect marketing gimmicks, you will find them, whether or not they exist.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846131#Comment_846131

It's not a gimmick. It's a feature.

Yeah, right.

Johan L

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846131#Comment_846131

Every single time a resource from a standard collection is found in a base package, it is listed by the collection. Most of the time, more than one of the resources from a specific collection are in the base package. Listing things from collections helps facilitate easy volume identification, make it easier to compare base packages, and allow a reasonable standardization in the display of products. On the whole, it's quite helpful.

I agree with OP that the presentation in this case is poor. It is misleading, though I doubt this is intentional on Faithlifes part. I was also confused by this. I think it is due to higher level packages often containing more of the recourses. It generally makes a lot of sense on the comparison chart, but on the individual library page it is misleading. (For this individual resource it looks like starter through portofolio includes only one resource so it's not helpful at all.) In my opinion it would be better if they wrote "(1/18 vols)" or "1/18 resources of this collection are included." 17 out of 18 is not "some", it is "most" or, even better, "almost all".

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846135#Comment_846135

It's not a gimmick. It's a feature.

Yeah, right.

It is a good feature. Look at a few more base packages. Run a few comparisons. Think back to previous comparison charts for Logos 6 (and earlier).

As it happens, I'm not simply making up Faithlife's reasoning; they have explained it elsewhere on the forums.

But if what you want to find are marketing gimmicks, marketing gimmicks are what you will find, no matter what is there.

Jack Caviness

But the WHOLE works of James Ussher?; not just the works but the WHOLE works.

That is because the name of the collection is The Whole Works of James Ussher (18 vols.)

Anytime a portion of a collection is included in a base package, that portion is listed under the title of the collection with the caveat that not all resources in the collection are included. You can find examples of bad marketing hype from FL—but this is not one of them.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846225#Comment_846225

That is because the name of the collection is The Whole Works of James Ussher (18 vols.)

You can find examples of bad marketing hype from FL—but this is not one of them.

[Y] Agree

Robert M. Warren

The feature has no clothes.

James McAdams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846238#Comment_846238

The feature has no clothes.

I'll add my name to the list of people who like to know if the resource their buying is part of a collection. I really wouldn't want Faithlife to stop providing this information, and I think they present it clearly and honestly. I'm sorry but I just don't think you're right about this one.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846240#Comment_846240

I'll add my name to the list of people who like to know if the resource their buying is part of a collection. I really wouldn't want Faithlife to stop providing this information, and I think they present it clearly and honestly. I'm sorry but I just don't think you're right about this one.

I agree. There have been plenty of examples of ham-fisted marketing over the years, but this isn't one of them.

DMB

I think ham-handed, and carnival hawker might be be a bit over the top. The funeral director? That ignores human nature ... referring to ancient funerals being really curious ... probably ancient funeral directors.

But true, Logos did try to improve the previous run. And true, clicking each entry to see if indeed a commentary or a book? Don't know but I suspect the response time is the variable the coders are struggling with .. new to you plus grouping.

But I do wonder about Logos marketing. People say major updates/packages to bulk up revenue flow ... plus Now to spread it out. But so many missed opportunities in the marketing, I wonder if 'cool software' is the real goal ... and not go bankrupt.

At the realease, I tried looking at packages .. saw the long list of every-last-book and gave up ... got the features. I notice the continueing queries about packages, Now, and features sets. Ignoring the confusion, the 'sell' is hard to see.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846280#Comment_846280

The New to You bug on this is annoying (where collections show up a new, but when you expand them, you own all of the resources included in the base pac -- err - library), but it seems like an "Expand All Collections" button at the top would please everyone.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846247#Comment_846247

I'll add my name to the list of people who like to know if the resource their buying is part of a collection. I really wouldn't want Faithlife to stop providing this information, and I think they present it clearly and honestly. I'm sorry but I just don't think you're right about this one.

I agree. There have been plenty of examples of ham-fisted marketing over the years, but this isn't one of them.

[Y][Y]

Abram K-J

What would be so onerous about just listing the one volume that is included, by itself?

A great question, and one I wondered the first time I saw this new way of listing things. Whatever Faithlife's intentions are, the "rhetorical" effect (if I may apply such thinking here) of scrolling through a long list and seeing "The Complete Works..." or "The Whole Works..." is to produce a reaction of excitement and eagerness to buy the package, since there is a "Complete" works listed. Of course, it is the same line that says, "Only some resources..." and there is an "Expand" to click, but this is extra work (if only a little) for the user, especially if one is primarily quickly scanning the left column to find out what's in it, and less concerned about the price of those individual resources (the column at right).

The same package you link to mentions "New Covenant Commentary (6 vols.)" and then turns out to only offer 1 volume. If they're going to do it this way, why not just say, "New Covenant Commentary" and avoid the potential for confusion? Or circumvent that split second (split seconds count in potential purchasing situations) where the user thinks the package might include a whole series/set?

But back to the OP: "What would be so onerous about just listing the one volume that is included, by itself?" Then the column at right could still list the larger set or series it's a part of, so the user could get the info that all the other posters on this thread want. That strikes me as more straightforward.

Johan L

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846404#Comment_846404

While I do agree that OP used harder words than was warranted, I still think the presentation here is poor, and could be improved pretty easily. In general the left column presents the name of the resource and the right column presents "Value if sold separately". The partially included collections does not fit this picture since the left column presents something that is mainly not included and the right column has the disclaimer.

When I first saw the page for Logos 7 Gold my thought was that the number in parenthesis was the number of resources from the collection that was actually included. When the expand button started working somewhat later I was very surprised to see that something that was presented as a collection only included one resource from the actual collection. I was still wondering if there could be anything wrong with the resources displayed since this was such a strange presentation of one resource. Many packages includes one resource from a collection and presents it as including "only some books" from a collection. This is not a wording any person would use and expect to get away with it. (If I owed you 149$ and told you I would give you back some of it and ended up giving you back 1$, I guess you'd rather I didn't. Standard gold includes "some of the" 149 Spurgeon collection which turns out to be one resource.) The expand button is right there, but you shouldn't have to press it to get an impression of what you are buying that isn't very misleading. As I wrote above this could be easily fixed by including the number in the disclaimer or in the name of the package. Now that this has been pointed out I can't see any reason not to change this apart from wanting to make packages seem better than they actually are.

It also seems that most of the packages presented in this manner are including less than half of the package, and in many cases only one resource.

Abram K-J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846539#Comment_846539

While I do agree that OP used harder words than was warranted, I still think the presentation here is poor, and could be improved pretty easily. In general the left column presents the name of the resource and the right column presents "Value if sold separately". The partially included collections does not fit this picture since the left column presents something that is mainly not included and the right column has the disclaimer.

When I first saw the page for Logos 7 Gold my thought was that the number in parenthesis was the number of resources from the collection that was actually included. When the expand button started working somewhat later I was very surprised to see that something that was presented as a collection only included one resource from the actual collection. I was still wondering if there could be anything wrong with the resources displayed since this was such a strange presentation of one resource. Many packages includes one resource from a collection and presents it as including "only some books" from a collection. This is not a wording any person would use and expect to get away with it. (If I owed you 149$ and told you I would give you back some of it and ended up giving you back 1$, I guess you'd rather I didn't. Standard gold includes "some of the" 149 Spurgeon collection which turns out to be one resource.) The expand button is right there, but you shouldn't have to press it to get an impression of what you are buying that isn't very misleading. As I wrote above this could be easily fixed by including the number in the disclaimer or in the name of the package. Now that this has been pointed out I can't see any reason not to change this apart from wanting to make packages seem better than they actually are.

It also seems that most of the packages presented in this manner are including less than half of the package, and in many cases only one resource.

Yep. Well said. Let us attend, Faithlife.

Anyone who feels compelled to say that "some" means one or more... is right, technically speaking. But in the current context, I doubt *one* available volume is what the user expects.

Johan L

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/846541#Comment_846541

Thanks!

For the sake of clarity: I found out that the Spurgeon collection issue was not as bad as I thought since "The Complete Spurgeon Sermon Collection (63 vols)" is indeed complete and this Collection is included in the bigger collection I mentioned. Sorry! The some=1 issue is still true in many other cases though.