In my position within the enterprise vertical, backdating to the expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm. Cisco does this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors I've worked with. We don't typically slip on the dates intentionally, but our procurement and legal groups have a habit of fighting over wording on the contracts.
David. On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Seagraves <dseag...@humancapitaldev.com> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Edward Dore wrote: > >> On 21 Dec 2011, at 18:46, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >> >>>> In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari >>>> books, >>>> they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't >>>> *get* >>>> the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with >>>> his >>>> appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either. >>>> >>>> If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an >>>> overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story. >>>> >>>> But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated >>>> that way. >>>> Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*. >>>> >>>> I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG, >>>> really. >>> >>> I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice, >>> wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided >>> belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel >>> their subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature >>> for a year. This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws: >>> >>> 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. It is no surprise that >>> they resent this. (Assumption: having resentful customers is bad) >>> 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. The >>> effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means >>> that August's signatures have little value by December. [By the way, it >>> seems to me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, >>> that represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, >>> or B) disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.] >>> >>> While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subject, >>> imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed the >>> insurance to lapse whilst you were there. When you return, the insurance >>> company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to >>> reactivate your policy. That companies customers would react in the same >>> way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay >>> out for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors. >>> >>> Nathan Eisenberg >> >> Are you turning your anti-spam appliance off whilst choosing not to pay for >> the maintenance? If not, then I'd argue that a better analogy would be that >> you don't pay for your car insurance but continue to drive your car around >> until you have an accident, at which point you try to take out a new policy >> so that you are covered. >> >> Whilst I can see the argument for the likes of signature updates, where you >> aren't receiving the service in the period that you haven't paid for (unless >> the signature update system is seriously broken), these kind of maintenance >> renewals for appliances normally also include software support and hardware >> repair/replacement. >> >> If the companies don't backdate the maintenance renewal, then you would end >> up with lots of companies only purchasing the maintenance on an ad-hoc basis >> and that will just make the renewals more expensive for those of us that >> actually pay attention to when our subscriptions to due to expire and how >> much they will cost to renew in order accurately predict cash flow. > > > <rant> > Besides, treating your customers like thieves and/or forcing disagreeable > conditions on them is all the rage now! Everyone knows they can screw > customers as hard as they like because everyone else is going to screw them > just as hard, and if you aren't screwing them hard enough, well that's just > wasted potential right there! Don't worry about them leaving for another > provider - They all do it! I mean, look at the airlines: Company profits in > the toilet, customer satisfaction so low they're trying to get Congress > involved, crew pay at the lowest on record, and the salaries of the upper > management is the highest in the history of the industry! Just think, if you > screw your customers hard enough, YOU could be NEXT sitting on that huge pile > of cash in the top of your ivory tower pissing down on the public! > > For example, I have a large pile of content that I have paid for but cannot > access anymore because their various copy protection schemes are no longer > supported or no longer run on modern machines. Next to that I have a smaller > but increasingly growing stack of content I paid for but REFUSE to access due > to provisions hidden in the EULA requiring me to display advertisements > and/or install spyware on my computer. You can't read the EULA before > purchase and you can't return the purchase for a refund if you refuse the > EULA. (That's right, you can sell AD-SUPPORTED software that customers pay > FULL RETAIL PRICE for! They whine and complain on the internet, but believe > you me, when the next iteration comes out, they'll line up to buy it!) I > could resort to illegal hacks that disable the DRM or remove the ads, but > that is a federal offense and a security risk, and I don't feel like wasting > my computer or career over a few hundred dollars. So they join the pile. The > companies who do this actually consider this situation desirable - They got > my money, and I'm not going to be downloading patches or using up server time > or anything. Pure profit! It's win-win! > > Executive Summary: It doesn't matter what your customers want anymore. You > just give them what you want to give them, and if they don't take it, you > punish them until they give up and go away (and don't worry about that, > they'll be back!) or accept your conditions. Thar's gold in them thar hills, > you just gotta go beat it out of em! > </rant> > >
