For those who complain.

Page 2 of 3 (52 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 51 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 1978
mike | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 7 2013 9:14 PM

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?)

Posts 10826
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 4:28 AM

Francis:
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...

JRS:
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!

Yes

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.

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 5:24 AM

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:

  • Scanning the store frenetically early in the morning (even though I'm a morning alert person) (overseas, different time zone). Or worse, in the middle of the night (I don't know what exact time of the day the error happened) - which would consume anyone's mental health!
  • Cluttering my library because of the above reasons (about them being either transliterated or having too much languages), want just one ICC volume and can live without it for a while, none from the other sets!
  • Doing something unethical.

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!:

Ryan Robinson:
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.

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 670
Sleiman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 6:07 AM

Unix:
So I don't regret these three things:

[...]

  • Doing something unethical.

Tongue Tied

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 6:21 AM

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.

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 670
Sleiman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 6:22 AM

Unix:
just wanted to say that I don't feel like doing unethical things
Yes

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 7:18 AM

John:
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 Cool

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. 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 7:33 AM

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. 

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 5397
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 2:04 PM

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.

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 525
Kent | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 2:58 PM

David Paul:
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?

Posts 19263
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 3:10 PM

Kent:
when grace is bestowed upon the undeserving, why complain?

Ask the older brother in Lk 15.

Posts 525
Kent | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 3:20 PM

Rosie Perera:

Kent:
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

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 3:54 PM

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.

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 397
John | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 6:33 PM

Super Tramp:

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 Smile

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 Wink

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 Cool

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.

Posts 1522
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 6:50 PM

Ryan Robinson:

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 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.

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 7:06 PM

John:
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. 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? Confused

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 19263
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 7:13 PM

Super Tramp:

John:
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.

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.

Posts 19263
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 8:00 PM

Super Tramp:

Rosie Perera:
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. Smile

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 8:16 PM

I know from personal experience that Bob and Dan Pritchett are kind and generous. No one can convince me differently.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 19263
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2013 8:39 PM

Super Tramp:

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).

Page 2 of 3 (52 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS