Re: Practice: Pay-Per-Use

I am in a business were we do both subscriptions and pay-per-use. We 
have a "huge" customer base.

The users from the U.S. prefer subscription based products.
The users from the U.K. and Europe prefer Pay-per-use.

Could it be cultural?
Could it be the amount of consumer debt that is carried?
Could it be the lack of understanding of costs and economics?

I don't guess ther reasons matter. The preferences of the two groups 
is really all a business should be concerned with for the short term.

Maverick
(a.k.a SirGilligan)

--- In xpbookdiscussiongroup-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Friedrich 
Brunzema 
<brunzefb@xxxx> wrote:
> There is something about pay per use that I don't like. I don't 
really
> know what it is, but (perhaps its just the wording - pay, pay, 
pay). 
> Renting a video from a store could be perceived as per per use, and
> ordering a pay TV movie would certainly be that as well. Somehow I 
see
> pay TV more as pay per use than renting a video from a store, even 
if
> this does not make logical sense to me.
> 
> Perhaps what I don't like about pay per use is what's so good about 
it
> in terms of feedback -- it reminds me that I have to pay every day.
> 
> Just think about cars for one second.  If you had to put money down
> every time you got into your car to pay for the real car costs (not
> just the gas!) - this would provide good feedback on how much you 
are
> actually spending every day.  The cost of longer trips would become
> very apparent.  Taxi rides are also pay per use,  which make costs
> very apparent. I suspect many people would use cabs instead of 
owning
> a car if the costs were really in your face.
> 
> From a business perspective, pay per use probably makes a great deal
> of sense.  I also appreciate what Kent is saying about money as the
> ultimate feedback, and how it can help to create even more value. 
> Still, there's something about it I don't like.
> 
> Friedrich Brunzema
> Extreme Programmer & Coach