Anyone else taken the Adobe Cloud pricing survey?

[jrp]

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).

[rcdurston]

Yup, just finished filling in mine too.
Someone seems to be testing the waters.

R

[langier]

I've gotten probably the same survey several times through the years. I always tell them cheaper is better.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[jrp]

So much for the "fixed price" guarantee.

[digitaldog]

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?

[aderickson]

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

[jrp]

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.

[digitaldog]

That they included tests of whether I would pay more or bail out to CS6.

More than the current pricing? Odd...

[Wayne Fox]

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?

[mlewis]

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.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

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’.

[digitaldog]

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.

[jrp]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[jrp]

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?

[digitaldog]

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.

[jrp]

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?

[digitaldog]

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.

[Chris Kern]

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.