Logos Updates and Upgrades and Ebooks and Data Sets

I like it how the system already works. Want upgraded features? Then buy the upgraded product with the new features.

I really dislike the subscription idea. Perhaps that could be another option in your marketing for some users who might like that idea, but I sure hope you don't get rid of "base packages." I would rather own the license all paid for, than have to pay a monthly or annual subscription. Especially since I can transfer my license to someone else. It would be pointless to transfer a "subscription." I would rather have all features paid for in full. If that means a NEW or ENHANCED feature costs more money, then so be it. I could either pay for it or go without it, but would not get a subscription.

My vote is NO to subscription based services (other than the magazine). Although a subscription based product will pretty much ensure a continued cash flow on a currently owned/licensed product, is it really necessary to consider? I have never liked subscription based software, as if the funds are no longer available to continue the subscription, the investment is lost, because the software no longer function.

The current model for purchases is good, as one has a choice whether to upgrade/add additional resources or not, without losing their current investment.

As for me, and the reason for my votes/suggestions, my cash flow is erratic. I may have a certain amount of cash this quarter, and another amount next quarter. So, if I am not able to afford more resources or upgrades, and my current investment was lost, it would be tragic. Payment plans can be a curse to some, but they are a blessing to me, as they keep my payments for the resources to a manageable level, and I know that one day it will be paid off and I can still study God's Word with this great software.

I like the subscription model IF:

1. you are talking about a subscription to updates as opposed to a subscription to the data set. In other words, if a user cancels the subscription they keep what they have, but no longer receive updates;

2. and IF there is also an option to pay a one time subscription for all future updates of the current product version. I.E. Pay $5 a month OR pay a one time $100 to receive all updates to Logos version 5.

Also, I think it will be important to be explicit about updates. From what I understand, some of the existing data sets are not finished and there is at least an implied promise that those data sets will be completed as part of the original Logos 5 product at no additional cost. I suspect people will be unhappy if the find out that they will have to pay to get the complete product they think they already purchased. What is an update? What is already paid for?

I have no problem paying for updates. Not that I have much money; I certainly don't. But, I do believe in paying for quality products and services that have value.

I vote no subscription.  I concur with Mark Barnes.

Randy W. Sims (Shayne) said:

I like the subscription model IF:

1. you are talking about a subscription to updates as opposed to a subscription to the data set. In other words, if a user cancels the subscription they keep what they have, but no longer receive updates;

2. and IF there is also an option to pay a one time subscription for all future updates of the current product version. I.E. Pay $5 a month OR pay a one time $100 to receive all updates to Logos version 5.

Also, I think it will be important to be explicit about updates. From what I understand, some of the existing data sets are not finished and there is at least an implied promise that those data sets will be completed as part of the original Logos 5 product at no additional cost. I suspect people will be unhappy if the find out that they will have to pay to get the complete product they think they already purchased. What is an update? What is already paid for?

I have no problem paying for updates. Not that I have much money; I certainly don't. But, I do believe in paying for quality products and services that have value.

This is like a support contract. I have seen this done with success. I have subscribed (if that word can be used) to these in the past, and felt pretty good about it. [:)]

I agree with this model, and would vote for it.

"What is the best way to monetize enhancements / additions to content already sold?"

It seems to me that  significant database updates would be best sold as a upgraded version of the software. Right now logos is offer the minimal crossovers, which the customer can purchase to get all the new features. If the software can now do more things with our books, then that would justify the cost of the upgrade. That is my perspective...

I know it changes the free software idea, maybe it means cheaper books? A guy can be hopeful ..

I also would like to vote against subscription. But I am willing to pay for upgrades to datasets if my wallet allows.

Armin

As always, Mark Barnes' perspective is one that I can harmonize to.  

I've often wondered why Logos didn't sell version of it's reading engine, accompanied by options for capability plug-ins...when I work with sound/video/photo-processing software, it often works that way.

When I work with Microsoft corporately, I have options to purchase software and then to add software assurance for a recurring fee.  Of course, for me the S/A has always been a losing proposition...but great for them because it normalizes base cash flow.  If I don't get S/A, then I just get critical patches for a few years.

It is important to me to know that I'll keep having what I've paid for to date (at least until technology makes that not work anymore).

I'm always concerned that Logos has a future-day time bomb in it's sales model...how to keep the lights on once you've saturated the market??  Once again, I am concerned that I could see all the "reach-back" features suddenly go away someday if Logos hits a cash flow problem.  I dont even know how well the stand-alone code would function if there wasn't a Logos to call home to...the product is increasingly dependent on back-end support/services.

I'm OK with paying for a substantial upgrade to capability--like a data set (aka enhanced plug-in), but agree with Mark that I'd understand it better if it was explained in familiar language like collections.  The danger I see in this is that what good is half of a data set?  It would be like selling a resource with the vowels removed... consider the case where a data set may be found to have substantial error/flaw and needs to be wholly revamped.  Is that a "patch" or a "new volume"?  Why would someone want to pay for the "old volume"?

Bob Pritchett said:

- Describe enhancements as data sets and 'lock' them in the user interface for users who don't purchase them. There is a "More Timeline Events" data set in the product configuration, but it really just enables the next 3,000 events in the existing timeline data set. A resource might be fully tagged with new metadata, but it doesn't get used if you haven't upgraded to a product containing the "Enhanced Resource Metadata Volume I" data set.

This seems like a good way forward, I think that the biggest challenges would be:

1. Articulating the benefits of the different datasets so that existing users purchase them rather than wait for a major upgrade.
2. How to package the 'interim' datasets, I see a couple of options:
   1. Market them individually, challenge here is that you could end up with a website full of dataset upgrades that is confusing for users.
   2. Create packages based on areas of interest and version them as each feature is added, increasing the package price and offering upgrades based on the price difference between the version the user owns and the current version.

Assuming that you retain a 3 year major release cycle whichever approach you take it would probably make sense to level the base packages at the mid point the issues that I see here are:

1. If you don't do it then over 3 years the base package plus dataset upgrades could become complex and confusing.
2. If you price this too attractively then all existing users will simply wait for this option unless they have a compelling reason to purchase a specific dataset.

An alternative could be to consider the datasets as 'editions'. Using timelines as and example I currently own the 2012 edition and if this was a book when you published the 2013 edition with an extra 3,000 events I would have to the new edition if I want the extra detail. I know that for books you have offered special pricing for existing owners when new editions are published if you took this approach then the only difference would be that whereas I end up with both editions of a book I would only expect to have a single copy of the dataset (I can't see any reason why I would need both).

Whilst the edition concept works well for timelines I'm not sure how well it works for enhanced tagging as there would be an updated edition of a 'search' dataset but the improvements are realised through a book that has not changed edition. Not sure that this is a show stopper just a case of ensuring that the value of datasets is understood by users.

Presumably you would refresh the packages periodically i.e. when there have been a number of dataset upgrades. Again these could be a chargeable option for existing owners of that package whereas historically these package updates have been delivered free of charge.

Personally I'm not convinced by a subscription model but would probably pay for dataset upgrades if there is a clear value being offered. 

Mark Barnes said:

Thanks, Bob, for this very helpful post.

Bob Pritchett said:

What is the best way to monetize enhancements / additions to content already sold?

Definitely, absolutely, certainly not a subscription, which has never worked for Logos (think the original Personal Book Builder licence, or the current FSB). Users hate this model for anything that they intend to use over a long period of time - unless the product is very expensive and a subscription makes it affordable. Logos 5 Portfolio for $100/month would be attractive to some, but probably only those who wanted something for college but didn't intend using it much afterwards.

Personally, I would suggest using the Collections Model, which we're already used to. When you update the Timeline, create a collection called Timeline (2 vols), and include two datasets to that collection: Timeline 2012 and Timeline 2013. When you next bring out a new Timeline, create a new collection called Timeline (3 vols), and retire Timeline (2 vols). Give users dynamic pricing options, so that users who already own the 2 volume collection, and upgrade to the 3 volume collection at 66% off.

[Y]

One other reason against subscription is that some of us have very varying incomes. I am sure I am not the only one who buys Logos resources when I have money not necessarily when I need them. But there might come a time when I need those resources but won't have the income. A subscription model would be very disadvantageous in this case.

Armin

I believe Dataset is a term confusing for many. One complaint I seem to be hearing is "I had that data or that search capability all along, you're scamming me".

I would suggest calling it "Meta-Reference Engine" or something that sounded as tangible as code, then you could have your various levels and/or versions.

Jack Caviness said:

Lee said:

I believe Dataset is a term confusing for many.

I don't think confusion is the issue with many of the complainers. It is the "I want everything that I want, but I also want someone else to pay for what I want" mentality that has come to dominate the US. Can't speak for the rest of the world, but I see it increasing to dangerous levels in this country.

[Y][Y][Y]

I'm in agreement with Mark especially. Two small things were also mentioned I don't think should be glossed over, although may not be completely related - more Lexham products in core packages (makes up for some of the weaknesses and cost control as it's a Logos generated product) and a "pre-pub" like system to help cover cost. I'd pay a one time fee for an upgrade but would welcome the opportunity to pre-pub it to save me a little money and help you cover the cost ahead of time.

[Y]

Interesting post Bob, Thanks for letting us know and for the concern to ask. 

Personally I never buy an “upgrade” till after –at the least- the first year. But from what I am reading, again, an upgrade was offered and sold that, well let’s face it, was chock full of issues[at least that’s what it appears from many a forum post] 

So my return question is along the lines of: 

Are you asking us if we would rather “subscribe” to the get product updates/upgrades that would originally be paid for with the understanding that the product was a viable working product with data sets that functioned and were complete[but some were not/?]? 

-OR- 

Are you asking us if we would rather continue to pay for an upgrade to a product that we originally bought as an “upgrade” thinking that it was working, and continue to do so until it gets done right, knowing that any and all updates would be an association that makes Logos what Logos is? 

It seems that the bush got beat more than usual by your long winded approach, I am not sure…..and by the way what about those "under development" books/data sets that are in Pre-pub, will they no longer be applicable to L4 or will one have to upgrade to L$ to use them?

But I am willing to read a reply.

R4m.

Alan said:

By way of example I ordered  a book which I returned within a week - the exchange rate varied to such an extent that I was refunded R50 (about $6) less than what I paid.

Ouch! The only time I've asked for a refund, they kept the money as a credit. Sounds like you should ask them to do that next time.

Sorry that the iPad indentation are lost:

Thanks for listening. And since the day 1 you post
this I've been thinking "outside the box" about things other than you
has suggested. Because the three options you provided are quite trivial. For
example option 1 will always be an option, regardless if option 2-3 are used or
not. The only room remains for discussion is if other options can help
simultaneously with option 1. Option 3 the subscription model sounds not doable
at first glance, except that one suggestion seems more doable: once
unsubscribed the user keeps what they have so far. But this is not having a
problem of its own (room for more discussion). Option 2 seems like the only
viable solution left, seemingly quite mandatory. And this is the approach
you're using in Logos 5. The problem is not if you should use this approach but
how to. Many others made a lot of suggestions on how to make it sound better
for the customer (marketing, communicating).

So I actually suggest all the readers here think
about the alternatives, in addition to suggestions on the way Logos should
market and communicate.

I'm not good at this, just sharing what I'm thinking:
collaborative effort (I don't know the exact word to use).

I believe that Logos creating so many Lexham
resources and the new human input data set is to do market differentiation, to
make Logos unique and valuable to the customers. But at the same time people
want things free (see the tremendous success of Wikipedia killing some
commercial alternatives for example). Logos should be more seriously providing
tools and platforms for something like this. And this will also do the market
differentiation for Logos. And actually open a door for users aiming at free
product first (something like "The Word" with Logos engine?)

E.g. PPB. That should have great potential. But
where's the platform? Logos should help to create a centralized place for these
resources. I understand if Logos provide the bandwidth then it actually costs
Logos a lot more. But what I'm suggesting might be something like a forum but
tailored for PPB. Types, titles, languages, etc. are organized; something like
the way Logos resources are searched. And allow users to paste their web link
for files. Yes this is an ugly solution that may lead to dead links, but at
least it cut the costs. And for the same title, different users can submit
different "versions" of their own, and let room for brief description
(like OCRed, or proof read, or like with headings and verse link, etc.) and
allow users to rate the condition of these different versions (actually all
these ideas are from an online open effort of scanned music sheets).

Well, PPB seems not quite related to data sets, and
now I'll relate to it: interlinear. I've been asking Logos to release a way for
users to create interlinear, but no response so far, not even email response. I
wanted to create my own Chinese-original language reverse interlinear as well
as original language-Chinese interlinear. And Logos is not doing it either (I
guess Logos don't have the resource to do this, so this is a great idea of
letting the collaborative effort to do what Logos can't do and at the same time
increase the value of Logos.) One of the elder brother I know is actually
encouraging people all over the world to make their own interlinear. If my
memory is correct the Indonesian Christians are doing it. Anyway, just saying a
platform for open source interlinear would be of interest for many. You don't
see them here in Logos because usually this people want to make them free. If
Logos let it happen then they would use it. And Logos earns the popularity,
which would later be monetized (e.g. Some Christians using the Chinese
interlinear will then look at other offerings in Logos that would help them
e.g. The BDAG).

And even more, Logos can allow us to sell it, pretty
much like what iBook Authors allow people to sell iBook in iBook store. That's
the famous successful ecosystem Apple has been famous for.

And more data set like example: timeline. If users
can create their own timeline and share like PPB, that would be awesome. Of
course Logos still need to do the hard work tagging all their resources to have
the time tag, but the timeline database can be expanded tremendously and
dynamically.

More and more examples are trivial, e.g. Bible facts,
maps, media. You got the idea.

My point is people want it free. Logos want market
differentiation. And collaborate effort help to bridge these. This should not
be the only way to do. Logos should do something unique and professional and
charge for it (or put it in a base package), with the budget they have. But
Logos should use this budget partially to fund providing tools for user input
content at the same time. Both ways would market differentiate Logos and
offering complementary alternatives to each other.

A few notes: 

Providing a way to provide user input content can
also be complicated. Examples like PPB and iBook Authors are a good reference.
Other examples are the SDK released for programming. I guess PPB builder might
be very costly to make since Logos want users to use it painlessly. But e.g. an
interlinear builder need not be that painless to use. In fact those things are
more technical. People creating them will expect some hard work. And some of
the very contributing people wanting/creating things for free are excellent
programmers. To get/deliver something free or even selling content make the
barrier of painfully input code so low.

User created free contents should have a central
platform to efficiently deliver it. Otherwise it will just be limited to small
circles. User created charged contents can be allowed to sell in the Logos
store, or at least in the platform I mentioned but downloaded from Logos'
server.

There might be a concern of network traffic stress on
Logos' server and customer service. But a model other software are using is
that free users download it NOT from their servers but a third party, free,
slow servers. And customer support is NOT available to these free users.

There will be many little details that might be
problematic but I think the big picture is more important at this stage.

Fully agree. I don't use proclaim nor recommend faith life study Bible because they are subscription based.

Ward Walker said:

As always, Mark Barnes' perspective is one that I can harmonize to.  

I've often wondered why Logos didn't sell version of it's reading engine, accompanied by options for capability plug-ins...when I work with sound/video/photo-processing software, it often works that way.

When I work with Microsoft corporately, I have options to purchase software and then to add software assurance for a recurring fee.  Of course, for me the S/A has always been a losing proposition...but great for them because it normalizes base cash flow.  If I don't get S/A, then I just get critical patches for a few years.

It is important to me to know that I'll keep having what I've paid for to date (at least until technology makes that not work anymore).

I'm always concerned that Logos has a future-day time bomb in it's sales model...how to keep the lights on once you've saturated the market??  Once again, I am concerned that I could see all the "reach-back" features suddenly go away someday if Logos hits a cash flow problem.  I dont even know how well the stand-alone code would function if there wasn't a Logos to call home to...the product is increasingly dependent on back-end support/services.

I'm OK with paying for a substantial upgrade to capability--like a data set (aka enhanced plug-in), but agree with Mark that I'd understand it better if it was explained in familiar language like collections.  The danger I see in this is that what good is half of a data set?  It would be like selling a resource with the vowels removed... consider the case where a data set may be found to have substantial error/flaw and needs to be wholly revamped.  Is that a "patch" or a "new volume"?  Why would someone want to pay for the "old volume"?

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your terminology.

“Logos Bible Software is a product that consists of code and content.” That is a clear and concise statement.

“But the point has always been to ensure continued access to purchased content through various platform and operating system upgrades, at no additional cost.” That is also a clear and concise statement and probably the better of the two. Moreover it’s the one I hold on dearly to when I hear an upgrade is coming out.

While these statements and other do clarify your terminology, from the other side of the purchasing counter they may not be understood in the same way as they are internally. Here is the rub, it is apparent that the same confusion and concerns have risen to the top with the roll-out of L5 as there was the L3 to L4 upgrade and these types of clarifying post, statements, and web pages come out after the roll-out instead of before.

Now I know Mr. Pritchett that you and your staff have strived to be as clear as possible.

Nevertheless the choice of explanatory vocabulary and timing (marketing/communication) seem to be relevant negative factors. What may be internally clear to you and your team doesn’t necessary communicate very clearly to your average user. I’m not a marketing wiz and I may even lack the necessary skills to explain this well enough but when the issue is the same with two Logos version roll-outs it’s time to look at the choice of explanatory vocabulary, communication timing and marketing approach and equally or even more so with the comprehension of these with your purchasing base. Very much what I think you are attempting here, although belated. Clearly what is understood internally to you and your staff isn’t necessary communicate very clearly to your average purchasing base (though some do understand, notice what segment of your purchasing base they are. Are they longer term users who have made it through an upgrade or two? Perhaps power users who have been on the forums for years.).

If I understand you correctly I like what you have communicated.

The adopted scenario for software buyers is primarily functionality. I.E. If I only need some smaller portion of functionality I might buy Adobe Photoshop Elements. If perhaps I need something more I might buy Adobe Lightroom. Still further Adobe Photoshop or Photoshop Extended. Or even a suite of Adobe tools. What an Adobe purchaser is buying is functionality not code-Semitics? -Subjective point of view? Certainly but well adopted by the software consumer. All things being equal this would apply 100%.

Though they may not agree with everything I have said I do agree with both Mark Barnes and Ward Walker and a few others with what they have communicated as concerns going forward. Nevertheless, while Logos is unique because of the content, when I buy software I buy for functionality just like I buy any other software.

Further thoughts from the other side of the purchasing counter:

I like buying books with functionality.

I like the concept of buying functionality.

I like the ideal that the books have the functionality built into them.

I like that I have access to that functionality based on the level of functionality (Silver, Gold, etc.,) that I would purchase. In other word that functionality is only release by the “data set” level I have purchased.

I know what books I want and what books I don’t want. Discounted or not, paying for books I don’t want so that I can gain functionality is, to be mild, irritating.

Books have a price tag. Functionality has a price tag. I understand

I have bought books and I want to maintain a certain level of functionality with those books.

“But the point has always been to ensure continued access to purchased content through various platform and operating system upgrades, at no additional cost.”

Unfortunately “continued access” does NOT always mean “continued functionality” when moving to a new upgrade.

Simplification would be a boon. Books and functionality.