Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: jrp on August 05, 2015, 09:53:06 am
-
Adobe seem to be doing a bit of testing to see whether they can raise the price of subscriptions of different periods (1 month, 50 days, 1 year) without pushing people back to CS6 (in the case of the photography plan), was my interpretation of the questions asked. They were also testing what sort of discount we'd need to be persuaded to pay up front rather than as you go (without letting you keep the software at the end of the subscription period, of course).
-
Yup, just finished filling in mine too.
Someone seems to be testing the waters.
R
-
I've gotten probably the same survey several times through the years. I always tell them cheaper is better.
-
I always tell them cheaper is better.
Thank goodness there are still people who think, with their own interest in mind (instead of Adobe's/etc./etc.).
Cheers,
Bart
-
So much for the "fixed price" guarantee.
-
Adobe seem to be doing a bit of testing to see whether they can raise the price of subscriptions of different periods (1 month, 50 days, 1 year) without pushing people back to CS6 (in the case of the photography plan), was my interpretation of the questions asked.
Haven’t seen the survey. What specifically makes you believe they want to raise rather than lower (as they did in the past) subscription?
-
I'm a non-subscriber but have gotten two offers from Adobe for the Photographers Plan at 20% off ($7.99/month) - one as an Elements user and one as part of Flickr Pro.
I'd count that as a test.
Allan
-
Haven’t seen the survey. What specifically makes you believe they want to raise rather than lower (as they did in the past) subscription?
That they included tests of whether I would pay more or bail out to CS6.
-
That they included tests of whether I would pay more or bail out to CS6.
More than the current pricing? Odd...
-
That they included tests of whether I would pay more or bail out to CS6.
odd. How were such questions worded? Any chance you might have bee reading more into them than was intended?
-
odd. How were such questions worded? Any chance you might have bee reading more into them than was intended?
They just grids of various Adobe products/bundles with various price options and you picked whichever one you preferred. At the bottom was a checkbox for if you didn't like any of the prices or like standalone.
-
odd. How were such questions worded? Any chance you might have bee reading more into them than was intended?
A large number of tables were presented sequentially in the questionnaire with a wide and complex range of options (range of products, single products, pay up front, subscription, monthly, annually etc., etc.) – including an option of declining all the choices. By far the majority of the tables presented to me were with prices more expensive that the current photographic deal. The tables were presented one after the other and you did not know what was coming next, so you couldn't make comparisons and pick the cheapest by default. I guess the aim was to see how much people would be willing to pay without comparing prices and getting the simplest answer of the “least amount”. I opted for the least expensive option (a lucky choice ?) and rejected all others. It may have been that the software controlled which were tables presented depending on your previous choices; and I had rejected all options which were more expensive than the current ‘photographic deal’.
-
A large number of tables were presented sequentially in the questionnaire with a wide and complex range of options (range of products, single products, pay up front, subscription, monthly, annually etc., etc.) – including an option of declining all the choices. By far the majority of the tables presented to me were with prices more expensive that the current photographic deal. The tables were presented one after the other and you did not know what was coming next, so you couldn't make comparisons and pick the cheapest by default. I guess the aim was to see how much people would be willing to pay without comparing prices and getting the simplest answer of the “least amount”. I opted for the least expensive option (a lucky choice ?) and rejected all others. It may have been that the software controlled which were tables presented depending on your previous choices; and I had rejected all options which were more expensive than the current ‘photographic deal’.
That makes sense, I suspect you're correct, the new questions were based on the previous answers, nothing really new here.
Again, I haven't see the poll. But based on what you report, for anyone speculate a raise or for that matter lowering of price is just that, speculation. What isn't speculation is the history of the subscription pricing.
-
Of course it is speculation, but assuming that they are not totally incompetent, the obvious q that needs to be answered is why would they be market testing a price that they have said they have no intention of implementing.
-
Of course it is speculation, but assuming that they are not totally incompetent, the obvious q that needs to be answered is why would they be market testing a price that they have said they have no intention of implementing.
The answer to that question is of course more speculation. So I don't want to go there, other's can if they believe it's worthwhile. Again, I know what the history has been in terms of CC pricing. I'm also not shocked, actually pleased Adobe would ask. What happen's down the road will be reveled when it's reveled.
-
Well let's make it simpler. What possible reason could there be for asking people whether they would be prepared to pay more if you were not entertaining the possibility of charging more?
-
Well let's make it simpler. What possible reason could there be for asking people whether they would be prepared to pay more if you were not entertaining the possibility of charging more?
Charging less to get more customers? Again, we have already seen this in the past. I'm not saying it will go one way or the other, I'm pointing out the history thus far.
-
I don't follow you. Why would you ask whether you were prepared to pay more if you thought that you might get more revenue by charging less?
-
I don't follow you. Why would you ask whether you were prepared to pay more if you thought that you might get more revenue by charging less?
IF I understand Simon's description of the survey, not every question about pricing was about a higher than current price. Did I understand that correctly Simon?
By far the majority of the tables presented to me were with prices more expensive that the current photographic deal.
-
Well let's make it simpler. What possible reason could there be for asking people whether they would be prepared to pay more if you were not entertaining the possibility of charging more?
Just guessing, but I wonder whether Adobe is trying to find out what it would take to entice photography-bundle subscribers to upgrade either to the full suite or to some subset thereof that included more than the photography bundle.
My guess is that the largest chunks of Adobe's Creative Suite revenue comes from enterprise customers (for whom licensing simplicity is worth paying for) and full-service graphics shops (where every staff member regularly uses most of the applications). But photographers probably are one of the next larger market segments—it perhaps is revealing that Adobe created the special photography bundle after so many of us howled about the price of the full subscription—and the Adobe marketing people might well be curious about where the threshold of pain would be for those who have a real but limited need for applications other than LR and Photoshop. Personally, for example, a subscription that included LR, PS, Acrobat and Dreamweaver would be very attractive.
-
Just guessing, but I wonder whether Adobe is trying to find out what it would take to entice photography-bundle subscribers to upgrade either to the full suite or to some subset thereof that included more than the photography bundle.
That would be fair enough, if it did not involve a price increase for those that do not need or want the extra applications and signed up to the photography bundle on the basis of the assurance that no price increases were being contemplated for it.
-
What isn't speculation is the history of the subscription pricing.
What is also not speculation due to historical record, is that the executives at Adobe have implemented sweeping changes without prior warning.
I offer that observation based upon being an Adobe license holder for over 23 years and a current subscriber to the Photography Package. If you recall, the price adjustment came as a result of "listening" after the fact .... the adjustment of the pricing for photographers was NOT a result of forethought and critical analysis before implementation ... but the result of uproar and pushback from a significant number of traditional users.
Yes, it is speculation as to what data this particular survey is attempting to collect and what motivated Adobe to conduct the survey ... however, it is not speculative to cast a doubtful eye on the intentions on the executives making decisions. They have proven to be quite fickle and self-serving in their decision making. Which has resulted in having to re-address those decisions after the fact. They don't seem to have a great track record of making wise decisions initially.
-
IF I understand Simon's description of the survey, not every question about pricing was about a higher than current price. Did I understand that correctly Simon?
Andrew, that is correct.
I need to be clear that the photographic package was not one of the options offered. It appears that they were looking for feedback on the pricing of other single applications and packages. By way of personal example, I also use InDesign but have not updated since CS4 since even the current subscription price to CC is, in my view, prohibitive – especially when compared to pricing of the photography package. [WARNING – SPECULATION ;D] Perhaps Adobe are trying to see what pricing would encourage users like me to subscribe to other CC software ?
If I recollect correctly the pricing seemed to start high and came down as I rejected the various options. From my own experience of completing the survey I do not believe that Adobe were simply trying out a simple ‘what price can we get away with’ but what kind of subscription model was preferred and what kind of packaging was preferred. The data they would have gleaned will be complex.
-
By way of personal example, I also use InDesign but have not updated since CS4 since even the current subscription price to CC is, in my view, prohibitive – especially when compared to pricing of the photography package.
A bit OT but I'm on the same page as you with respect to ID. I'm hardly a power user but I'm not sure what new 'features' it has that would make me go to the CC version. And that's kind of key, if Adobe doesn't make other items in the suite a must have for our work, why subscribe to a more expensive package?
-
And that's kind of key, if Adobe doesn't make other items in the suite a must have for our work, why subscribe to a more expensive package?
Me too ... I stopped upgrading to ID at CS3 because the amount of documents I was creating for print were beginning to decline ... and ... ID is a bit of overkill for wedding album design.
I do occasionally accept projects where I must use the latest version of ID for compatibility reasons ... then I'll just do a single app, one month rental for $29.99 and pass the cost onto the client as part of my fee. While I am a huge fan of ID, it's not worth it to pay a single app annual or whole package fee to have it accessible each and every work day.
If Adobe would be inclined to offer mid-range packages ... say any 3 CC apps for an appropriately discounted monthly fee ... I would consider such an offer with great interest. Not that I don't find the $50 whole enchilada offer a reasonable investment ... there's a lot of dead weight in there for the work I do. Many of the apps would never be used at all. No sense in investing in tools I'll never utilize.
-
A bit OT but I'm on the same page as you with respect to ID. I'm hardly a power user but I'm not sure what new 'features' it has that would make me go to the CC version. And that's kind of key, if Adobe doesn't make other items in the suite a must have for our work, why subscribe to a more expensive package?
+1
-
Talk about a complete POS, look at (or don't) Acrobat DC. Awful! Looks like it was designed for idiots and unlike version 9, I can't find how to do anything based on it's 'work by icon' approach.
-
I can't find how to do anything based on it's 'work by icon' approach.
Certainly not to defend Acrobat DC, but isn’t the toolbox in Photoshop a “work by icon” approach? The Macintosh and others from 30 years ago a “work by icon” approach?
I think, Andrew you’re being dragged by Adobe into a touch-screen / mobile tactile world and you’re not comfortable yet with that notion. It is 30 years later now, after all.
It is true people don’t like changes that seem to be too different than what they expect. (Subscriptions vs Perpetual.)
Again, not to defend Adobe.
-
Certainly not to defend Acrobat DC, but isn’t the toolbox in Photoshop a “work by icon” approach? The Macintosh and others from 30 years ago a “work by icon” approach?
What I was referring to was an approach where nearly all of the items for editing or processing are totally icon based and separated. Few menu items to look for to find the tool you need. So no, nothing like Photoshop. I deleted DC but if you'd like, I can go back and provide a screen capture. I'm back on Acrobat 11, where I can find the tools I need.
There's a screen capture here: http://cdn1.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-03-at-10.54.58-AM.png