Well it seems some of that matches the direction taken by LC ("add a premium for access to these features"), but some of it doesn't ("don't make business decisions based on casual predictions").This is pointless. Any value entered here does not really mean anything, it is an estimate based on a prediction, based on nothing more than the fact that you requested an answer so people needed to enter one. I am certain that 90% of the people that answered this part would give you different responses if they participated in the survey one week later.
Whatever it may be worth, a suggestion: don't make business decisions based on casual predictions for matters that people can't accurately estimate. I know you have a business to run, but you're asking for financial advice from an audience that can't give you a reliable answer. Follow your vision, add the FEATURES that people need most, and having done that, if you're not doing well financially, add a premium for access to these features.
I believe the 2-year Indy offer that concluded on 24th July was mistimed. Too early.
IF this was done to achieve a cash injection (which is an absolutely valid and reasonable requirement), it was done wrongly:
- People new to LC would certainly not start off with a $500 commitment, so I'm sure not many takers came from there.
- People that needed Indy were already paying for it, so LC actually lost money on them.
- People that didn't need it up until now would not gain any advantage from fixed prices or discounts - they just don't need Indy.
- People could have been enticed by offering them more features. The "more features" part was mentioned in Kevin's letter (things that would be available only to Indy), but these features are not there yet. So this is another "forward-looking" argument. Not really a factor for deciding now.
That leaves only "support for LC as a platform" as a reason for acting on the offer. But strangely this was not the direction the campaign took. It was more "help our loyal customers save money longterm" rather than "help the platform stay alive". It would have been more direct, and in my view certainly more successful, to use the second argument. If LC is in trouble financially with regard to achieving the stated goals, they should just reach out to the community and say so, or at least offer flexible ways for us to help. Putting a $500 threshold to us providing that help is inflexible.
Needless to say, if LC is doing absolutely fine financially, and this was genuinely a goodwill offer to the LC community, all the above is invalid and I would be happy to hear it. But if that were the case, the offer would apply only to current LC users, not to everyone/anyone. Again, I would be glad to be wrong.
