Rent-to-own?

[PieBerger]

First

Okay one last try before I believe that you don't want my money

I'll take your money, don't know what for yet, but we can figure that part out later

[Urs]

I highly recommend to avoid debt. But if you need to get into debt, try to limit it to one finance institute.

[oonabe]

First off, no worries. I'm not here to ruin your first posts on KVR.

You might not realise this, but you just confirmed all the worst suspicions we have on the issue. We believe that rental schemes (like aggressive sales) attract customers who are not very committed. We furthermore believe that those will become unhappy customers who commonly drain more resources for support than happy ones. Ultimately, unhappy customers equal worse reputation.

In regards to "subtle threats", this thread and others are full of "companies need to see the sign of times (rent to own) or else they will die" in various forms, often paired with "it's not just me". Again, you might not realise, but those are arguments designed to scare (or bully, if you will) us into submitting to *your* desires, they are not arguments based on actual business insight. You also use the argument of "this has been asked so long ago, why hasn't it happened yet" as if the whole thing was inevitable. It is not

Lastly, if we talk business scale and stuff, a company our size would not go "rent to own". A company our size would go "rent". Because "rent" multiplies shareholder value by a large factor.

On a side note, a very large company has recently failed in an epic move to concentrate on a rental scheme for their content. It may very well just be a short lived fashion, not a paradigm shift.

Honestly I don't get why should a rent to own plan mean unhappy customers, at the end both paying at once or paying in rates is a deal between two parts. The rent to own option is not mandatory, the buyer can pause it forever if he wants and all he did was to rent the application, how should that make a buyer unhappy? I don't get it.

I am not threatening at all, even when your interpretation of my words might go in that direction, maybe other potential buyers were more aggressive but I was only trying to tell why, in my opinion, offering a rent to own plan only means opening the door to more potential customers. Of course you don't need to do that.

But a rent to own plan doesn't necessarily have to end up being a door for unhappy buyers, many customers that might be doubting if your software fits their needs might try it during several months and see if it fits their needs and likes, they are not forced to pay the whole software if they find out they don't really like the software as to pay it completely and they can stop paying and loose the license if they decide not to pay it until the end. They have then rented the software, and that's why it's called rent to own. I can't understand how someone might get unhappy knowing this before hand

Either way, after 12 sites discussing about this I guess you have already heard arguments like these more than enough and as we all agree it's up to you offering the payment methods you want as well as it's up to the buyer to accept your payment options or not depending on how much he or she wants to have your software. That's the principle of a purchase contract.

Have a nice day and good luck with your business no matter if you offer rent to own or not, and I am not being sarcastic here

[lunardigs]

I think the word "threat" is wrongly being used here; "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage." - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat
To say 'I'm not going to buy your product, unless ...' isn't a real threat. Right? To then voice more of my opinion and or predictions is just that.
Now, even if I were to say, 'I hope AT&T dies,' that's still not a threat. It's merely my hope. I've stated no intention to do evil, damage, etc. Right?
Now, if AT&T decides to put me on their secret enemy list because they deem my statements to be a "threat"--and they would--that's another story.

[Urs]

To say 'I'm not going to buy your product, unless ...' isn't a real threat. Right?

It needs "like many other people" and "not being able to adapt" to express itself in the form of "I'll be part in making your company fail, unless...".

[oonabe]

I think it's all only a conversation about pros and cons of having rent to own or not from both sides, the customer side and the company side, there is no threat when we are only talking about a deal in which both parts are free to agree or disagree when it comes the purchase contract and its conditions

[giant_panda]

It's not a subtle threat, I’m not dying to buy your software, actually I am not very interested in it because further than the purchase model I do prefer other synths over diva for my music.

You might not realise this, but you just confirmed all the worst suspicions we have on the issue. We believe that rental schemes (like aggressive sales) attract customers who are not very committed. We furthermore believe that those will become unhappy customers who commonly drain more resources for support than happy ones. Ultimately, unhappy customers equal worse reputation.

So true! It's a pleasure to see such a reasonable logic nowadays.

[Urs]

(in reply to oonabe)

Well, don't worry about it. I don't read too much into it either. I'm used to "you're losing customers..." - people seem to just use this whenever they see fit without thinking much about it.

Thing is, we'd lose a gazillion customers if we went "rent" like Adobe. We'd even lose a lot of them if we went "WUP", which is essentially a rental scheme disguised as really cool service for free updates.

As I said, "rent-to-own" is a strange scheme which is seemingly helping people on a tight budget, but probably costs them more in the long run than any other: It's more expensive than "just rent" for a few months, and the investment is lost if they don't follow through. But they can only sell it off *after* they're through with it, so there's no way to sell a license that's half paid off, should budget get really, really tight.

It furthermore offers no advantage at all to the software manufacturer, unless they need some kind of exposure. Which we simply don't.

Hence, if anything, we'd go "rent", not "rent to own". And that, really, is something I wish to avoid. It's the inevitable step only for unsustainable business practises, i.e. when the market dries up. Which, for us, won't happen anytime soon.

[oonabe]

yeah, rent to own and subscription plan are two different things even when they might share some features.

For me personally a subscription plan is the less interesting option of everyone out there, I would even save the money rather than buying a subscription plan for most services because I understand it's very interesting from the manufacturer side but it's the less interesting for the customer and in my opinion not every service is worth a subscription plan.

I still can't see how rent to own is of any disadvantage for the customer, then even if the customer doesn't pay the whole amount through it was at least available as long as the customer paid it, it's like a subscription plan but with a final date and without additional costs as a credit would mean.

But I understand for the manufacturer might be of disadvantage as the money comes slowly and customers might end up deciding not to get the software completely and giving out 20 dollars instead of 200.

Well, I guess we all know or can think about what purchasing options could bring on positive and negative consequences for both sides, I don't want to make this discussion longer than it deserves. There are different purchasing methods and at the end is the manufacturer the one who decides which of these options are suitable for their business model and customers should decide if to buy or not depending on their needs and the purchasing options the manufacturer offers. I guess there is no more to it

[lunardigs]

To say 'I'm not going to buy your product, unless ...' isn't a real threat. Right?

It needs "like many other people" and "not being able to adapt" to express itself in the form of "I'll be part in making your company fail, unless...".

The word "threat", to me, is about what a Judge would think. You can find many definitions of the word out there, referring to "punishment", "retaliation", "menace", etc. Although, it's the implication of "damage" which has a real legal meaning. True damages are measurable--and rewardable if tested.
For instance, I want to be a part of Coca-cola's demise. I want others to join me in a boycott of their toxic products--I want GMO ended entirely. Do you think a Judge would award Coca-cola damages for those statements? ... One thing is for sure, it'd be pretty difficult to prove, or construe as libelous or defamatory.

[oonabe]

I don't know but I think we might be taking this "threat" word thing a little bit too far. I am personally not planning on doing a boycott on U-He, I do actually like one of their products and would like to buy it but the price and conditions aren't for me good enough to make that step.

I can only talk for myself and say that if U-He would make rent-to-own I would instantly buy that piece of software. But it's up to them to do it or not. If I tried anything with my words is to give a customer perspective and why that advantages for the customer might also suppose an advantage for U-He as a manufacturer, but I can only see things from my personal point of view as a customer, I don't know which disadvantages that selling option might have for U-He.

And as far as I see there is no planning on adding that option and I can only take what they offer, which is to pay the full price at once or wait for a sale if they make any and save a little money. For me the piece of software I'm interested in is something I would consider a nice addition to my personal library but nothing I want to have unconditionally. So in my personal balance a rent to own would have been the decision factor for me to definitely buy it, not having that option only lets me one option, wait for a sale, because I am personally not that interested in that piece of software as to pay the full price at once.

But with that said, I am just one potential U-He customer, many others might see things very different as I do and some others may see it the same way I do. I thought adding those customers that see it the way I do to the U-He customer list would be something positive for the company, but I might be wrong. The only thing I am sure of is that I wasn't threatening anybody, it was said with good intention and of course a little bit of wish that U-he might consider it an option, nothing more than that

[elxsound]

... On a side note, a very large company has recently failed in an epic move to concentrate on a rental scheme for their content. It may very well just be a short lived fashion, not a paradigm shift.

Are you able to say more about which company?

I've been saying for a long while now, that the general move to subscription based services, or "renting" is not going to be sustainable in the bigger picture. There's just too many companies competing for the same monthly income.

There's been recent articles about how many people are not paying attention to the number of small value subscriptions they have and are unwittingly, shrinking their disposable income.

As a side note... I used to have Adobe CC and I loved it while it paid for itself, and later when I moved to other tools, I unfortunately missed the annual renewal that locks you in (and paid longer than I wanted to). Its a shady model and I'm happy to finally move away from them.

I still have sub with them for photoshop and Lightroom, but those are being retired by Affinity Photo and Pixelmator Pro. Its not a 1:1 feature for feature switch, but it suits my needs nicely.

If I could only transition miss elxsound to Numbers from Excel, then we'd finally lose the sub for Office.

As for the topic... While I do understand why some feel the need to choose rent-to-own, what I don't know if others understand, its not a winning situation especially considering the companies offering their products via this model. Those same products are often heavily discounted at multiple times a year, but rent-to-own model pricing stays the same.

There's definitely good money to be made in the hobby user base and try-it-out user base, but its almost like that group is being taken advantage of.

But business is business.

[lunardigs]

I don't know but I think we might be taking this "threat" word thing a little bit too far.

True, it's just a discussion.
I find irony in virtually everything though--which is why people enjoy my company I assume, because of the comfort in certainty I provide--and so I muse.
Take for instance when someone recoils to a "threat" by saying 'was that a threat?? ... Are you threatening me!?'
Haha! So one "threat" begets another, I guess.

As far as renting, leasing, never owning anything, it's all anathema to me. Much like the first plank to the Communist Manifesto IMHO. Fun read btw.

[oonabe]

I don't know but I think we might be taking this "threat" word thing a little bit too far.

True, it's just a discussion.
I find irony in virtually everything though--which is why people enjoy my company I assume, because of the comfort in certainty I provide--and so I muse.
Take for instance when someone recoils to a "threat" by saying 'was that a threat?? ... Are you threatening me!?'
Haha! So one "threat" begets another, I guess.

Haha, ok, I guess I am missing something as english is not my first language, but if it's about having fun and seeing things from a relaxed point of view I'm all for it

[lunardigs]

I don't know but I think we might be taking this "threat" word thing a little bit too far.

True, it's just a discussion.
I find irony in virtually everything though--which is why people enjoy my company I assume, because of the comfort in certainty I provide--and so I muse.
Take for instance when someone recoils to a "threat" by saying 'was that a threat?? ... Are you threatening me!?'
Haha! So one "threat" begets another, I guess.

Haha, ok, I guess I am missing something as english is not my first language, but if it's about having fun and seeing things from a relaxed point of view I'm all for it

Me too! ... sometimes