For those who complain about Logos' prices and service...Read this
Thanks Kent, had not read the blog today. Some of us knew of the mistake, but decided that it was not ethical to take advantage of someone else's error.
Speaks well of their values to give up 40,000.oo. Not many companies the size of Logos would have done the same thing, at best they would have given you a payment plan.
I agree. Logos would have been justified in locking out all resources not purchased.
I'm impresessed. Logos employees should really be impressed. Now the other shoe waits to hit the floor.
Wow!
Every time I hear people complain about the cost of something, I wonder if they forgot how much God paid for their salvation.
There were a couple of threads here on the forum where people were praising Logos for being "generous" for giving things away free. There was some disagreement as to where and how the "generosity" originated. I guess now we know [H]
I just hope no one got fired because of that mistake. [:|]
DAL
So, let me see: whenever products show up for $ 0.00, we may grab them in the knowledge that since Logos decided to own up to its own mistakes, we can have them for free? So then, does it become ethical?
Some would probably argue that legal = ethical though clearly there is a difference. My first reaction was to be angry that some people may have grabbed all they could and got rewarded for it while others -- who rightfully assumed it was a mistake and would not take advantage of it -- did not. At the end of the day, Logos can come out owning up to its mistakes and that's fine and good customer service business-wise. Those who want to continue to do what is right not just what is permissible can take comfort and joy in knowing that in not building up their library that way, they're building up another store...
So, let me see: whenever products show up for $ 0.00, we may grab them in the knowledge that since Logos decided to own up to its own mistakes, we can have them for free? So then, does it become ethical? Some would probably argue that legal = ethical though clearly there is a difference. My first reaction was to be angry that some people may have grabbed all they could and got rewarded for it while others -- who rightfully assumed it was a mistake and would not take advantage of it -- did not. At the end of the day, Logos can come out owning up to its mistakes and that's fine and good customer service business-wise. Those who want to continue to do what is right not just what is permissible can take comfort and joy in knowing that in not building up their library that way, they're building up another store...
I want to let you know also that I truly resonate with many of the words of your post ... Thank you very kindly, Francis!
You have spoken well! ....... and your words are truly appreciated ....
I have "mixed reactions" toward any who would deliberately take something that didn't belong to them .... so, I'm going to pray that my thoughts and emotions remain God-Pleasing ........ May God help all of us Forgiven Sinners seek a truly sanctified life and attitude, filled with Love and Joy ........ AND a great desire for Christian Living, a Living of the truly Honourable Life ... for those whose Names are written in the Book of Life ............. ............. for Jesus Sake, eh???
*smile*
Curiosity.. Which products were for free?
ICC Anchor BECNT Pillar NIGTC all were. I saw it with my eyes. I freaked out and decided that it wasn't right to do that. Pretty crazy.
I just hope no one got fired because of that mistake. DAL
I just hope no one got fired because of that mistake.
A good manager recognizes that firing someone(s) in the heat of the moment will never recoup the lost revenue. However, under the category of trying to make lemonade out of lemons, that same manager will also recognize that he now has someone who will always double/triple check to be sure that it never happens again.
What perplexes me are the ones who keep their "purchases" even though the matter has now been made public. Yes, Logos did the right thing. But shouldn't the "purchasers" also do the right thing? Personally, if it were me and I held on to my "purchases", I would never want to read Acts 5 again!
WOW!!! As much as I would've loved to be part of that mistake, there's still that something that makes me feel uncomfortable at the thought of keeping any of those if it was a mistake Logos made. Something just wouldn't feel right about it.
Yes! Logos did indeed do the right thing! I honour them for that! *smile*
Bob Pritchett is indeed an honourable man ....
Unfortunately, Logos can't just "write this off" as a bad deal because "digital is just an electronic copy" !!!! Digital is a lot more than that!
Because Logos now finds themselves in the position of having to pay publishers for these books that people took for free ....
They have a commitment to the publisher to pay the publisher for each end user in sales ... OR however the contract was written ....
The publishers have the right to expect this ... AND ultimately, where does Logos get the money in the long, long, run??? From Logos customers, of course ... *smile* Peace to all! Psalm 29:11 indeed!
Oh, I don't know. we've seen those TV news accounts of a gas station accidentally charging zero and the place getting mobbed.
As you watch the action, you kind of wonder.
Because Logos now finds themselves in the position of having to pay publishers for these books that people took for free .... They have a commitment to the publisher to pay the publisher for each end user in sales ... OR however the contract was written .
They have a commitment to the publisher to pay the publisher for each end user in sales ... OR however the contract was written .
But since it was free and Logos profited nothing, wouldn't it logically follow that they owe nothing since there were no charges involved? Yes it was an estimated $40K but a similar thing is done when they give away books in Vyrso or Logos (e.g. Free Book of the Month, etc.). I'm not saying they don't owe anything to the publishers (they might) but there's really no way of knowing that for sure. After all, it's not like they are running out of licenses for a specific book and now they have to "make more" [;)]
They will owe the publisher money. The "free book of the month" is normally a public domain work. Free Vyrso books are offers extended by the publisher.
It would be pretty foolish to fire someone after investing $40,000 in their education, wouldn't it?
:-)
(Paraphrased from Henry Ford or Thomas Watson or some other early business person / apocryphal writer...)
What perplexes me are the ones who keep their "purchases" even though the matter has now been made public. Yes, Logos did the right thing. But shouldn't the "purchasers" also do the right thing?
Actually, we were impressed at how many people reached out to us... we're blessed to have wonderful customers.
As I said in the post, we actually like a chance to 'showcase our values' -- this wasn't a big negative incident for us, and I don't see it as really costing $40,000 -- money our users didn't spend on Book A is money they'll spend on Book B -- and we've got lots of books! We meant it about keeping it if you got something for free from our mistake... but if you feel bad about it, feel free to buy something else! :-)
but if you feel bad about it, feel free to buy something else! :-)
The eternal optimist. [Y]
half of my heart is regretting that I wasn't part of that "dozens" people who got lucky.
what the heck was I doing during the "freebies" session..
.
that's right .. babysitting ... arghhhhhhh...
Bob.. is there another "way" for us to see "such discounts" in the future? (not free, not a mistake, but close to a freebie for the items that went on the weekends?)
[Y]
Also loved Bob's response. Didn't purchase any of the freebies for the same ethical reason several others have expressed, but I will definitely buy more books from Logos.
Well, ICC contains a whole lot of languages. Anchor seems to be transliterated (at least the volumes I've had a looked at, and they are not included in the set). So I don't regret these three things:
PLUS: If "purchasing" for $0, that doesn't add to the demand so Logos wouldn't know, and that's actually an aspect I think about.
I rather pay to keep my library in a good, pruned shape, and I have enough to read for two years ahead, "free" books would really be of extremely little value to me.
AND I would actually feel ashamed if I would "own" for example Anchor - it would be IMPOSSIBLE to explain to anyone how on earth I've made such a purchase since I openly tell people that I have low incomes. And I tend to reveal to friends what approximately I have in my library, so the problem would just keep growing!:
So I don't regret these three things: [...] Doing something unethical.
[...]
Oops, now I see that that was grammatically a bit weird. To clarify: haven't done it, just wanted to say that I don't feel like doing unethical things, I know the publisher would have got paid and I don't want to encourage Anchor-Yale as I don't regard their products very highly. I wouldn't have "purchased" ICC - it would have been so hard to explain having it.
Also I would have told my friend and she would have said God doesn't like doing that kind of things.
just wanted to say that I don't feel like doing unethical things
There were a couple of threads here on the forum where people were praising Logos for being "generous" for giving things away free. There was some disagreement as to where and how the "generosity" originated. I guess now we know
Lest anyone believe your insinuations, I must set the record straight.
The threads you reference have nothing to do with this error revealed in the blog. The generosity of Logos had to do with free Vyrso books. All 332 free books I have received from Logos/Vyrso were freely offered and freely received. They were never the result of a mistake.
Bob Pritchett has once again shown the gracious side of Logos. You can protest all you want about free Vyrso books cost Logos nothing to give away. The rest of us recognize there is overhead and maintenance costs associated with running a website. And outside of Logos and Vyrso you will not find any resources in Logos format. Yesterday I knew Logos is generous. Today I know that doubly.
Yep. Most companies would let maybe $2,000 go. More if it was peanuts per customer. But $40,000 and major resources. It's more like a university study in honesty (with earlier studies unable to link honesty to religion). Unfortunately the university study never expected the 'Logos' CEO.
I don't understand the Vyrso griping issue. When they began Vyrso, I thought one of the goals was to allow Logos owners access to these type of free deals. I view it as a win/win for both Logos and the customer.
So if I find a stack of Brink's bags lying in the road, do I just throw them in my trunk and say it's Brink's cost of doing business? For whatever reason, the door didn't get shut properly and their mistake is my gain? Also, I don't see how it is an issue of good will on Brink's part by saying "our mistake", even if they charge it off. That attitude certainly wouldn't make me want to be a customer. "All's fair" and "live and let live" don't seem to be the operative principles in this case. "Do unto others" is more to the point.
Unless Logos deliberately offers unpublished Secret Sales, this should be seen as an unlocked gate and treated as such. Just because something came through the gate doesn't mean it is "first come, first served". The gate should be locked by the first person to encounter it, and whatever got out should be shooed back in.
That attitude certainly wouldn't make me want to be a customer.
Are you objecting to the company's' gracious act? I could see a point in finding fault with the actions of a person taking something that is not theirs, however, when grace is bestowed upon the undeserving, why complain?
when grace is bestowed upon the undeserving, why complain?
Ask the older brother in Lk 15.
when grace is bestowed upon the undeserving, why complain? Ask the older brother in Lk 15.
My sermon was on Luke 15 last sunday.
A partial outline included:
1.) The son's rebellion
2.) The son's remorse
3.) The son's repentence
4.) The son's return
5.) The son's reception
a. The Grace of the Father
b. The Guile of the brother
If Logos would have locked all those $0 purchases, some of them would have been greatly disappointed.
Some of use are greatly disappointed that Logos didn't since the customer base is going to have to pay for the mistake in the end anyway.
Either way people would have been disappointed, and a few people can have great difficulties with dealing with disappointment.
The threads you reference have nothing to do with this error revealed in the blog. The generosity of Logos had to do with free Vyrso books. All 332 free books I have received from Logos/Vyrso were freely offered and freely received. They were never the result of a mistake. Bob Pritchett has once again shown the gracious side of Logos. You can protest all you want about free Vyrso books cost Logos nothing to give away. The rest of us recognize there is overhead and maintenance costs associated with running a website. And outside of Logos and Vyrso you will not find any resources in Logos format. Yesterday I knew Logos is generous. Today I know that doubly.
Wow, it seems that no matter what I post, someone is going to misinterpret it [:)]
I was not "protesting", I was merely pointing out that those particular books were also being given away free elsewhere, thus was obviously not just a logos/vyrso thing. I am aware that stating facts like these sometimes is perceived as an attack on someone's sacred cow. But my opinion of sacred cows is pretty low too [;)]
If you got 332 free books, congratulations. How many of them have you read? My personal opinion is that most of them are useless and worth exactly what you paid for them. But if you are happy, I am happy for you [H]
As far as "generosity" goes, Logos/Vryso is a for-profit company, with its stated goal of making a profit. Any freebies that for-profit companies give away generally are considered promotions or advertising expense.
My first job when I was in high school was at a grocery store. They used to sell bread 3 for $1 and sometimes 4 for $1. I asked the manager one time how they could sell it so cheap. He said that they took a loss on the bread because it got people inside the store, where they usually ended up spending money on other items.
Giving away free books now and then is the same marketing tactic. You got 332 free books which makes you very excited about books. Along the way you have spent money on the books you really wanted, because of course they were not free. The company made a profit because the freebies were essentially worthless.
You are correct that this thread is different ... but you missed the fact that what was given away by accident was the valuable stuff. That is the reason it was an accident. For-profit companies do not give away valuable items for free. That would be against their stated profit goals, against their own best interest, and eventually could do harm to the company.
Bob Pritchett does indeed seem to be a guy with good morals, but his job as company president is to ultimately make a profit so that the company can survive and prosper. He hires people to find ways to increase sales. And those people come up with "promotions" like the free book giveaways.
I guess that recognizing the difference between a marketing tactic and personal generosity does require a little bit of understanding.
I already own and enjoy the BECNT, Pillar NT, and the NIGTC. Luckily, I don't want or need ICC or Anchor. I guess I didn't miss out after all.
If you are suspect of every good deed that you see done and ascribe nefarious motives underlying such deeds, I pity you. I am a happy camper in all things Logos.
I do wonder if Logos treats me better than they treat you. Otherwise how could a reasonable person, such as yourself, be so jaded? [*-)]
I guess that recognizing the difference between a marketing tactic and personal generosity does require a little bit of understanding. If you are suspect of every good deed that you see done and ascribe nefarious motives underlying such deeds, I pity you.
If you are suspect of every good deed that you see done and ascribe nefarious motives underlying such deeds, I pity you.
Marketing isn't a nefarious motive. It's a standard part of doing business. Nothing morally wrong about it. I don't think John was looking for some nefarious motive behind what Logos does. I think he was just being practical minded. A totally legitimate reading of the action Logos took with this mistake. Both ways of looking at it are correct. Neither one needs to invalidate the other. Neither of you two need to "convert" the other into seeing it his own way. Go your merry ways and be happy with your interpretations of the event. It was a bonus for all who benefited from it. I do think it's a win-win for Logos in the long run, but I do think they have very good principles. I don't think they necessarily decided on those principles because they would be good for business in the long run. I think they probably decided on them because they're just the right thing to do. However, as it turns out, they probably are also good for business, because they win good favor with customers who will end up buying more products from Logos. So everyone wins out in the end.
A wonderful economy, isn't it, when doing good results in doing well? That's not always the case. Sometimes we just need to do the right thing even if we're going to suffer for it.
Marketing isn't a nefarious motive. I never said it is. This whole debate over whether or not Logos is generous came up over Vyrso books. John's last sentence in this quote is what I took objection to.
Marketing isn't a nefarious motive.
I never said it is. This whole debate over whether or not Logos is generous came up over Vyrso books. John's last sentence in this quote is what I took objection to.
John was saying the free giveaways were merely a marketing strategy.
You said John was suspect of that good deed and ascribed "nefarious motives" to it. But the motive he ascribed was marketing.
Thus you implied that marketing is a nefarious motive.
Nothing John said ascribes nefarious motives to Logos.
He chose not to see it as generosity but merely a good business tactic. That doesn't contradict what you were saying (that it was generosity). I'm just saying you two can both see it your way without having to argue each other into the ground.
There are often two valid ways of seeing the same thing. My favorite example of this is the one that Stephen Covey gives in his chapter "Inside-Out" in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. He has you look at a drawing of a young woman, and then look at an ambiguous drawing which could be interpreted either as an old woman or a young woman depending on whether you see one particular curve as her nose or her chin. Then he has you look at a drawing of an old woman and back at the ambiguous drawing. After you've been looking at the young woman, you see only the young woman in the ambiguous drawing. After you've looked at the old woman, you see only the old woman in the ambiguous drawing. The point being, our preconceptions shape how we see any particular thing, and both viewpoints can be equally valid. We need to led go of our own viewpoint being the only right way to see something.
Here's the ambiguous drawing. Do you see an old woman or a young woman?
Now stare at this drawing for a while and look back at the above. What do you see in it?
Now stare at this one and then look back at the first one. What do you see in it now?
The experiment works best when you have two people who are each shown one of the rough sketches (not the same as each other) and then both are shown the ambiguous drawing. They each can see only "their" point of view and not the other. It takes seeing things from the other person's background a bit (being shown the other drawing) before suddenly you can see the different woman in the picture.
So John, try to look for the generosity in Logos's actions. It won't kill you to admit there's some of that involved.
And Super Tramp, try to look for the smart business savvy in Logos's actions. It won't kill you to admit there's some of that at play too.
You're both right, that's the beauty of it. [:)]
I know from personal experience that Bob and Dan Pritchett are kind and generous. No one can convince me differently.
ST, I agree with you, and I know them both personally (as in IN PERSON). I wasn't trying to persuade you otherwise, and I don't think John was either, or if he was, he shouldn't have been.
What I was trying to persuade you (and John) was that it doesn't have to be EITHER/OR. It can be BOTH/AND. They are generous people, and they were making on behalf of Logos a savvy business decision (marketing). The latter does not contradict the former. It need not. John might have felt it was ONLY (or mostly) a business decision with no generous thought implied. You seem to be saying it was ONLY (or mostly) generosity, with no marketing/business strategy involved. I'm saying it can be BOTH without either of you losing face or needing to feel you've been persuaded you were wrong. Because you weren't wrong. You were and are RIGHT! And so is John (if you interpret him the way I am).
I do wonder if Logos treats me better than they treat you. Otherwise how could a reasonable person, such as yourself, be so jaded?
I use and benefit from Logos software. It is a tool. I do not worship it. My view about it is based in reality. I see its strengths and weaknesses, whereas your view seems to involve rose-colored glasses and a misguided need to attack others who do not view things exactly as you do.
The point being, our preconceptions shape how we see any particular thing, and both viewpoints can be equally valid. We need to led go of our own viewpoint being the only right way to see something.
Good observation. I read Covey many years ago and had forgotten it. Today I would call this phenomenon a "Paradigm". It is basically a mental "filter" which the human brain uses to process incoming information. Information which does not quickly and easily conform to the previously accepted paradigm is either set aside or discarded. This allows the brain to function quickly in everyday situations. Decisions can be made quickly without endless analysis.
The downside is that the accepted paradigm may not be correct, and the brain actually begins working to filter out information which is true because it does not fit the paradigm. We see this in all areas of life, but is especially interesting in theology.
You're both right, that's the beauty of it.
Well, that's the way YOU see it [H]
You're both right, that's the beauty of it. Well, that's the way YOU see it
Well, that's the way YOU see it
Thanks for being good natured in your disagreement with me. [:)]
My view about it is based in reality.
Here we can agree, somewhat. We have separate realities. You seem to be choleric and I am melancholic. My "rose-coloured glasses" see babies as something pleasant. I hear birds singing in the morning. I prefer solitude to crowds. I enjoy the simplicity of the moment.
It isn't that I think Logos is perfect. I just know it is the best. When people accuse Logos of being "greedy" they are accusing the people of Logos. (A company has no morals of it's own.) The leadership sets the moral compass of the company.
I take up offences when someone dear to me is attacked. The folk at Logos have endeared themselves to me over the past 5 years. At times I have acted zealously like Peter in the garden (John 18:10.) I apologize for lopping off your ear. I accept that we see things differently.
... We have separate realities ... When people accuse Logos of being "greedy" ...
... We have separate realities ...
When people accuse Logos of being "greedy" ...
Yes I agree. It must have been in a separate reality that I accused Logos of being "greedy".
Reality: the dream of a mad philosopher.
[Ambrose Bierce]
Wow, I've been away this past week and missed all the excitement. Although I personally didn't even see these mistaken prices this whole situation has once again confirmed my believe in Logos as an amazing company. I am pleased to be part of such a great community.
Reality: the dream of a mad philosopher
We live on two levels ... the realistic level and the fantastic level, and which is the real one, really?
[Tennessee Williams]
That attitude certainly wouldn't make me want to be a customer. Are you objecting to the company's' gracious act? I could see a point in finding fault with the actions of a person taking something that is not theirs, however, when grace is bestowed upon the undeserving, why complain?
Grace is deceitful. Prov. 31:30.
Grace is deceitful. Psa. 31:30. ***Why does the link above link to Psa. 31:24? Odd.
Grace is deceitful. Psa. 31:30.
***Why does the link above link to Psa. 31:24? Odd.
Perhaps because
Were you referring to something other than an English translation?
My bad!! Prov. 31:30. Fixed above.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
