Originally posted by Pyro:
This is not intended as a marketing ploy to just bring us new customers, it's to gain information about pricing and some other things. It's something that you as a consumer are subjected to everyday whether you realize it or not. We've selected a group of people based on a number of factors and have used them to test out different price points. We can take that information and crunch the numbers and have a good idea whether a different price point would make more sense for us. If we find that to be the case, then everyone benefits. We didnt' put a limit on the duration of the rate because it's the information that we're after and to do that would taint the results.
We know that it seems exclusionary to our core supporters and that's been our chief concern in doing this, but given the choice of not exploring this or going about it in a reckless manner, we think that this is the best option. The goal is not to have multiple price points, it's to have the best price point. If things work out the way we want them to, we'll all benefit.
Pyro,
Just a point here and for what it's worth I happen to agree with Renfield.
You already have a defacto price differential. You have promised a non expiring price of $19.95 for a select few.
HiTech Creations, creator of Aces High, is conducting a survey to collect valuable information for our marketing efforts and product development. As part of this effort we have developed a limited time offer for you to join our game online. We've made arrangements for you to join the ranks of massively multiplayer flying for only $19.95 per month, unlimited months, unlimited flying until you delete this account. That means unlimited flying at a savings of $10.00 per month just for answering our survey.The scope of the target group is obvious. They are the ones who played for free and left. That is how you had their e-mails and names to form a set fixed number of low price permanent members.
Common sense would tell you that the main factor in
not gaining a paid account after the free trial is the price versus the competition. They are similar products and in competition for the same market. Granted there are differences in scope and quality but it is still a fight for the air combat gamer. The competition happens to be setting lower prices than you are.
If you had examined it, looking at the price the competition charges (ie WB and AW3), you can tell what their price levels are and the amount of player support they have. Heck even going so far as to have an AH employee with an account in each of those business' and examining the influx of newbies would tell you if that was a success or not. Checking the various game bbs threads would do that as well.
Frankly I find it hard to believe that this is a price exploration. Doing what you have, setting up 2 pricing groups, is insulting to those who have been playing and paying the higher price.
This brings it to a head. You have stated you
will give a $19.95 price for unlimited play to your "test" group. There is
no expiration date on this offer. That means they have the preferential customer price as long as they want or until the game goes away or falls under new management.
That leaves you as a company only two choices. Maintain a tiered pricing structure where early (and later) customers and supporters get to pay a higher price or set the price the same for them all. You already have a price guarantee to one group now. Is it going to be the same to us all or are we not worthy of the same consideration?
IMO setting the $19.95 as unlimited time offer was a bad mistake. Doing it for 6 months would have told you the same thing.
Performaing a standard exit survey of players not starting a paid account could have gotten you a similar result. Do you really think the answers would be any more valid with a "price break" incentive versus an opinion without the "gimme"? By throwing in the incentive you have tainted the results.
Any polster who pays for "opinions" is only buying what they want to hear.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-24-2000).]
