Ownership -vs- Access

To the brethren at Faith Life Corporation, Thank you for your efforts to make available for many people (a minimum of 2 ½ million users) the Logos Digital Library for so long, around the world. You have a product that varies in value to a diverse of users. Many more pastors, religious writers, teachers and researchers, some are not attached to universities or research institutions, would like to use your product in its fullness, but don't have full access to your product because of immediate available funds. Lack of funds should not be equated with lack of knowledge or research skills. Unfortunately, many of this group find ownership too costly up front or to own. I believed people wouldn't mind sacrificing if they had access to all of the resources necessary to do thorough research. It’s like going to a public library and not having access to all of its holdings. In a public library situation all citizens pay taxes. Let the truth be told, many don't care to own a large number of books (like a public library, in a particular subject, religious or otherwise), but would like to have the convenance of full access to your materials for reading, browsing, and research. In the Public Library system all pay a little and everybody gets full access to everything. I know you aren't public, but a private corporation. However, many users today find the apparent “baiting and switching” or “nickel and diming” of customers for instructions to use packages on the various levels appalling and annoying, especially since one doesn't have full access to all there is. The advertising of books only available on certain levels or costly single set purchase is one more reason to give attention to the serious users. I am not looking for welfare, handouts or something free. I am simply asking for full access by way of renting or rent-to-own. Besides, in my humble opinion, the current practice may prove to be unsustainable to maintain, to do research, make a profit and continue development, without tarnishing your name or driving users away. How can you do this and give everyone full access (now) and still make the needed profit for continuous research and development? Please consider the following: 1. Utilization Access Plan: a). Develop a plan to rent to users the Collector's Edition or at least the Portfolio Level. Yes, full access (now) to all books and data sets. b). Give ten (10%) discount if the rent is paid in advance for a year. 2. Utilization Access Ownership Plan: Devise "a rent to own" plan for those who want full access to everything (now) and ownership at completion of payments. A plan similar to purchasing a house. I suggest you review this method of marketing. It will increase sales and users of your products. With full access to everything, the users will beg for instructional programs, increase attendance to the boot camps, what you are trying to promote now and any other short cuts for the best utilization. a). This plan should be bequeathed at the user's death when completely paid in full. If this plan is not paid for at the time of the user's death, the beneficiary should be given the option to take over payments without penalty until its completion. b). A reasonable incentive, IMO, is to give a fifteen (15%) discount to customers if their Rent-to-Own Plan is paid in full within one year after the signing of the contractual agreement. c). Customers currently owed books should be used as downpayment in this plan. I know Faith Life Corporation may not need to do this to survive, but I am asking you to do this for your users and the next generation of users. Every man who eats bread, doesn't own nor is s/he required to own a bakery. Furthermore, many eaters of bread don't know how to make bread. Someone allow them to eat despite their limitations. Please consider the above suggestions or shift in marketing when it comes to Logos Bible Software accessibility. Must everyman own hundreds of books to a have access to a full Biblical Digital Library? Allow your product and the work of your researchers to speak for themselves by making it fully available to all. You (financially) and your users (access/knowledge) will benefit and be blessed. God has blessed you with researchers, skilled workers and knowledge, pass on the blessings and give your users full access to what's currently exist. Be the blessing that you want others to be. What I've proposed can become a reality sooner with some adjustments and collaborations (FaithLife Legal Department and customers). "Where there is a will, there is a way." If you take care of the customers, the customers will take care of you. C. T.

Your proposed "rent to own" proposal seems similar to the existing payment plan provision on base packages - unless I have misunderstood what you are suggesting.

Does this help at all?

Charles McNeil:

It will help in that one would have access to all books and all date sets immedately. This is the difference from what is now.

Graham was saying that the payment plan does exist now: https://www.logos.com/payment-plans

Isn't the existing payment plan program practically the same as your idea of rent-to-own?

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

EastTN:

Integ:

Isn't the existing payment plan program practically the same as your idea of rent-to-own?

One key difference between rent-to-own arrangements and installment purchases is that there's no obligation to buy with a rent-to-own deal.  So, if I'm working on a thesis I might decide to rent a specialized collection for six months.  If during that time I found that I simply couldn't live without it, rent-to-own would allow me to apply some or all of the money I'd already spent on renting it towards the purchase price.  The key advantage is that it allows me, in a sense, to delay the rent vs. buy decision.  (If the payment plan already lets you do that, and I just don't understand it well enough, then I retract all of this.)

You are correct with this definition of "rent-to-own" and it doesn't offered by Faithlife today.

But the definition that Charles seemed to be using in his original post seemed to be somewhat different and, I think, the payment plan model is in line with what he was suggesting. But we won't really know unless he posts back.