Re: (NOISE) Re: Free Pronto Secure Offer

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Michael T. Babcock wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> To: unicorn@schloss.li, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Date: Tue Aug 27 17:33:42 1996
> > So would I, however, the assumption that "cypherpunk crypto review
> > services" are to be had for nothing is the height of arrogance.
> 
> They've already got a lot of us reviewing it... sorry, it's not arrogance 
> - -- they were right.

Read what I said carefully please.  I said the assumption that they are
for free is arrogance.  Perhaps your services are worth less, that's
not really my concern.  They may have a wonderful product, but expecting
and taking for granted free review by the entire list is still arrogance.

> > If you were sincere, you'd thank them with cash.  Afterall, you seem
> > to suggest that you have a good deal of liquidity eh?
> 
> Actually, they lose $99 each time they give us a free copy of the software 
> ...

Uh, no.

Assume a Scoobie Doo Mystery Machine Van is free with your one cent
donation to Burger King, or $1.49 with no donation.

Query:  How much is a Scoobie Doo Mystery Machine Van worth?

Query 2:  How much has Burger King "lost" if you donate a cent and take
the van?

Replace "one cent donation to Burger King" with "opportunity cost of
reviewing and writing a review of the software."

Replace "Scoobie Doo Mystery Machine Van" with "copy of crypto product."

Determine the cost of producing one software package.
Subtract the opportunity cost of the reviewer from software package.
production cost (or market cost if you prefer).

Now, revist your statement above.

> in case you're not as good in accounting as you think you are in 
> crypto.

Uh, perhaps you better direct your keen and unblurred accounting acumen
inward.

> I have no idea what your rep. is ... but I know one thing, they're 
> offering an exchange of valuable software (market value: $99) for valuable 
> services (crypto-rebel review)

The relevance of "market value" in the above paragraph is left as an
exercise for the reader, as is the nature of the term "valuable software."
 
> > Uh, the kiss ass paragraphs were the reviewers comments, not your code.
> 
> I aggreed with the reviewers comments, they're mine too ... I've sent many 
> long E-mails to people I do computer service for endorsing Pronto Secure.

Ok, and how much did it cost you in opportunity cost to write a few kiss
ass paragraphs about the software?  (Hint, it's almost certainly less than
$99, and if not, the crypto company is taking you for a ride).
  
> I have lined up 6 people who wish to purchase it.

And thousands in this country have bought pet rocks.  So?

> This is for real pal.  

Thankfully, I am not your pal.

I don't care if it is real or if it is not.  The point is that certain
marketing and review tactics make a crypto product, regardless of its
merit, look like a pile of dung.  Offering free copies to write reviews
where that offer contains phrases like "a $99 value) is one such tactic.

> If you don't like it, get out of the ring.

A little dissention upsetting for you?  If you don't like it, get off the
list.

> Some of us want our PGP to be nice and easy like E-mail used to be.

I'm not sure why my comments are so clearly, to you, a value judgement
about Pronto Secure itself.  My comments were directed toward their
marketing efforts and tactics.  I have since come to believe that the
marketing department there has got it on the money now, and understands
the way those kind of offers go over with some individuals on the list.  I
suggest you consider reviewing my original message.  Looks to me like you
just replied to a reply to a reply.

> Message Copyright 1996, Michael T. Babcock
> http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mbabcock

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li