To: David who wrote (15843 ) 11/22/1999 10:00:00 PM From: David Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Pricing the new software . . .see, e.g., United States v. Microsoft ). It's not the way you should be pricing your goods when you are trying to get a mass market deployment. Yes, I know that IDX is not raising prices for the same product, but offering more product at the higher ($129 v. $99) price . . . but that misses the point when (a) you are looking to maximize sales and market presence; (b) you have a functional product at $99 without the add-ons; (c) essentially all the software costs have now been incurred; and (d) you desperately need to pull away from a crowded field in any way you can.Oh, I know you could be up and running for $99, but for $30 more you could be up and running with cuter software and give us really nice profits! I don't think so. Let's see IDX price the extra software at $19 . . . leading to this sales pitch: "We can now offer you upgraded hardware, upgraded BioLogon software, and both BioShield and BioSafe for $20 LESS than before! The combined package is only $79, and you can't find anything like it elsewhere for twice the price! Which pitch gives IDX more profits and control of the market? Isn't it obvious?higher than the FIT hardware/software package is likely to be priced? I'd like to see the market survey IDX did to come up with that decision . . . or I'd like to see any evidence of marketing professionalism in that decision.
