<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What happened to Pull Marketing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/11/what-happened-to-pull-marketing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/11/what-happened-to-pull-marketing/</link>
	<description>Innovative Marketing Strategy and Programs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 21:04:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/11/what-happened-to-pull-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markdevisser.com/?p=3#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Bill,

I do not think Crippleware creates any positive results. The giveaway should be useful and complete in itself.

But that does not mean there cannot be a free and a commercial product that are differentiated by features. The way that is done most is by drawing the line between functionality that can be used by individuals and functionality that clearly addresses the needs of commercial users.

The free version of Linux is a great product and drives the fast majority of small websites, including commercial ones. But if it has to scale across clusters of servers and be backed by a support organization that can deal with issues if that breaks, than it is a different story.

Customers understand these distinctions well and generally accept them.

Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill,</p>
<p>I do not think Crippleware creates any positive results. The giveaway should be useful and complete in itself.</p>
<p>But that does not mean there cannot be a free and a commercial product that are differentiated by features. The way that is done most is by drawing the line between functionality that can be used by individuals and functionality that clearly addresses the needs of commercial users.</p>
<p>The free version of Linux is a great product and drives the fast majority of small websites, including commercial ones. But if it has to scale across clusters of servers and be backed by a support organization that can deal with issues if that breaks, than it is a different story.</p>
<p>Customers understand these distinctions well and generally accept them.</p>
<p>Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Karwin</title>
		<link>http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/11/what-happened-to-pull-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Karwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markdevisser.com/?p=3#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Hi Mark, what do you think about the difference between giving away a free product that has similar (i.e. a subset) functionality of the company&#039;&#039;s main product, versus giving away a free product that is dissimilar but attractive to the same customers as the company&#039;&#039;s main product?  

The former, sometimes called &quot;crippleware,&quot; I think actually turns some customers off or dissuades them from trying the product.  They perceive the limited version as being worthless.  

But if they get a fully-functional product for free, they may be more inclined to use it, and then subsequently check out the company&#039;&#039;s other offerings.

This seems like a subject for Dan Ariely&#039;&#039;s book &quot;Predictably Irrational.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mark, what do you think about the difference between giving away a free product that has similar (i.e. a subset) functionality of the company&#8221;s main product, versus giving away a free product that is dissimilar but attractive to the same customers as the company&#8221;s main product?  </p>
<p>The former, sometimes called &#8220;crippleware,&#8221; I think actually turns some customers off or dissuades them from trying the product.  They perceive the limited version as being worthless.  </p>
<p>But if they get a fully-functional product for free, they may be more inclined to use it, and then subsequently check out the company&#8221;s other offerings.</p>
<p>This seems like a subject for Dan Ariely&#8221;s book &#8220;Predictably Irrational.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
