Black Box 4/BlackBox.cdr/textinfo/guide.arj/LETTERS@.COM/HOYT.LET

Text File | 1985-01-19 | 10.3 KB | 207 lines

Soft & Friendly (tm)                                        January 18, 1985
Michael L Hoyt

In response to "PROGRAMMER'S GUIDE"

Nelson,

     The "guide" certainly is interesting and thought provoking reading.
You obviously put a great deal of effort into its production.  What follows
are a few of my thoughts on the matter.  Please use them as you see fit.

     The answer to your "experiment to see if programmers are willing to
share their ideas..." is obviously, YES!!  This is apparent to anyone who
looks at the wealth of source code and helpful hints available on the
various bulletin boards around the country.  Programmers as a group can't
help themselves when it comes to giving away information.  Another question
that could have been asked was, "who are we (programmers) as a group?"

     I think we are:

1) Generally not part of the "main stream" population.

2) Individualists both in action and thought.

3) We get deep satisfaction from the creative thought process that is a part
of program development. Creative thinking is very addictive, and because of
that,

4) We are willing to spend time "programming" (that's creative and free
thinking, unstructured), but not selling because that is structured.

5) Unlike many, we realize that what people call "creativity" is usually
just a small amount of insight and a lot of hard work which is often based
on discoveries made by others, and therefore,

6) We are willing to share the discoveries we make with other potentially
creative people. (sort of returning the favor)

7) We tend to spend our time "living" in our own minds.  This is very
different from the average person in the street who spends most of his/her
time interacting with or responding to outside stimuli.

8) We have the pioneer spirit.  We are not afraid to try something new and
untried.  Like "shareware" for instance.

     Now for a few thoughts on:

MAJOR MAGAZINES

     You chose well when you talked about the coverage of such programs as
PC-WRITE, PC-FILE, and PC-TALK.  A look at the authors of these three(3)
programs gives a hint as to why they have receive coverage while the rest of
us have not.  All three(3) are major "players" in the computer field.  Each
has made his mark and even though doing well with his "shareware" product,
is still able to earn his keep doing a job in the mainstream computer field.
They have "paid their dues", and are accepted by the mainstream to the
extent of having been co-opted by it.

     My guess is that no major magazine is going to give coverage to the
rest of us, until they can be made to realize the benefit they can derive
from such a service.  Unfortunately the only magazine that recognized the
benefit was "Softalk" which has folded due to reasons that had nothing to do
with the "understanding" of its editorial staff.

     Frank A. Bell, the author of NEWKEY, stated in his letter, "it is [a
magazine's] business to sell ads..."  This is the very reason that they
should be giving coverage to shareware.  I believe that Frank misspeaks
though when he says that "they risk the displeasure of their advertisers..."
when a magazine does give coverage to shareware.  In fact, he seems to
contradict himself with his statement that "The popular magazines are
reluctant to publicize software which competes directly with their big
advertisers".  That could be taken to mean that a magazine won't cover
WordStar for fear of loosing the advertising of MicroSoft which produces
Word?  Of course that is not the case.

     The fact is that a magazine bases it's advertising rates on circulation
and the demographics of its intended readership.  If the magazine's
(independent?) surveys show that it is reaching the audience which corresponds
 to the advertiser's intended market, that's what is important to the
advertiser, not editorial content.  Editorial content is only important to
the magazine because it is used to attract the intended advertising market,
period.  (The advertiser uses "slick" to compete with the other advertisers,
not editorial content.)  Therefore, our task as I see it, is to educate the
magazines' editorial staffs to the fact that by helping us, they help
themselves.

     A profile of the IBM PC (and compatible) user would show two(2) things.
More than likely, each is using the computer in a business related setting.
Most users are limited in their use of the computer (if not outright
intimidated by it).  Since this is the case, a column devoted to shareware
that is easy to learn and use, inexpensive to purchase, and helpful to a
business person is sure to attract and keep readers.  And there is our
coverage.

THE SHAREWARE CONCEPT

     At this point I think it's important to say that coverage alone will
not "make" a shareware product.  Shareware is just another distribution
method, nothing more.  The product has to be good enough to survive using
any method for distribution, including the normal way.  PC-FILE, PC-TALK,
and PC-WRITE are good examples.  They have general appeal, fill a need (real
or imagined) of the user, and appeared on the market with the desired
functions at the correct time.  Each would have made it using standard
commercial distribution although the price would undoubtedly have been much
higher.

     Two(2) of the programs, PC-FILE and PC-TALK, were successful because
they were perceived as filling a specific "need" of the user.  When they
appeared on the market, there really was no competition, commercial or
otherwise.  On the other hand, PC-WRITE was perceived as being similar to a
much used existing product, (WordStar), but easier and more powerful.  The
success of each of the three(3) was due to the way in which it was perceived
to fill a need of the user.  (Just good marketing.)

     Many (if not most) of the shareware now available is duplication of
another shareware or commercial products.  Even if the specific product IS
better than the competition, that alone does not assure success.  The
product will only sell if it is PERCEIVED as being better by the potential
user.  Creating that perception in the market place is what "glossy"
advertising is all about.

     Now a crucial question.  Can the desired PERCEPTION be created in the
potential user's mind and still allow for the use of shareware distribution?
Assuming that the answer is yes, here is a possible way to go about doing
it.

1)  Follow the "rules" for a good program that are enumerated in the
PROGRAMMER'S GUIDE.  Don't try to just get by.  At least not if you expect
to succeed.

2)  Distribute a freely copyable DEMO version of the program only. The
shareware market has already proved that (for whatever reason) if a full
featured version is available for "free", you are likely to get very few
registrations.  (My personal concept of the "reason" is that a person always
pays as little as possible for an acquisition.  Living with your conscience
costs less!  The other "reasons" are just camouflage.)

3)  Send a printed manual and the latest version of the software to everyone
who does register.  This is only good PR.  Your real advertising is "word-
of-mouth."  Build on this concept.

4)  Once the program is ready, get in the distribution channels.  Send it to
every club and BBS you can find.  If no one has access to it, there is no
way that it will be successful.

5)  Take advantage of every free software listing that comes your way.
Describe your product in glowing terms just like the commercial companies
do, but make it truthful.  If you lie, or are misleading, you will kill any
good will that may have been generated.

6)  Give the best product support you can manage.  It helps develop good
word-of-mouth advertising for you.  Any truthful advertiser will tell you
that word-of-mouth is always the best.  The industry's glossy ads are part
of the process used to produce positive word-of-mouth, but not the entire
process.  But by the same token, one(1) unsatisfied user can do more damage
than 10 satisfied users.  So, keep-em satisfied!

6a)  If you don't want to give support to the DEMO you distribute, make sure
it won't need any.  Otherwise you are going to get bad-mouthed.  And when
you get calls for DEMO support, accept the fact that you are going to have
to help.  Remember, the (potential) customer is ALWAYS right!

AUTHORS' CO-OP

     Just forming a group will not be any help.  The group will have to do
something.  Here are a few ideas on what needs to be done.

1)  Begin the campaign to convince the major magazines that giving us
coverage will pay off for them in the long run.

2)  Establish a central clearinghouse for distribution of our products to
user groups.  My first inclination is to think that HAL-PC's "Public
Library" may be a possibility.  They already seem to have one of the best
library systems in the country.  I would think that most user groups would
be willing to pay an annual fee to receive automatic updates and new
releases.  This needs some more thought, obviously.

3)  We also need a central clearinghouse for distribution to BBS around the
country.  Here again, for the BBS that are not connected with a user group,
an annual fee from each board may be in order.

4)  Establish a "seal of approval" that could be used in a co-op member's
advertising, documentation, or whatever.  The seal could only be used AFTER
approval of each specific product by a committee made up of part of the
membership.  This could possibly cost the co-op some money since the
unauthorized use of the seal may have to be forcibly stopped.

5)  We may even want to go so far as to establish a standardized product
package (similar to the one used by IBM for the Personally Developed
Software) so that our products could be easily recognized.

6)  Begin putting the pressure on the rip-off artists who charge more than a
break-even fee for copying our products for distribution.  I have no
doubt that some of them are making more money "copying" our software than we
are from registration fees.


     Thank you for beginning the process of discussion, Nelson.  This is the
first step needed to ensure the survival of the "shareware" concept.  I have
reproduced the Appendix B from "PROGRAMMER'S GUIDE" here to save you some
time.

                                   Sincerely,


                                   Michael L Hoyt