Resource discussion 1939 register pricing structure

[BostonLil]

From 1939 search tips topic

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=734390.msg5811084#msg5811084

No they are not doing it to make searches more difficult.
In my opinion they are doing it because people have been bragging on the forums and mailing lists that they were using the reference number to get the information without having to purchase the images.

If you need to blame someone blame those freeloaders.

You have somewhat contradicted yourself here.  If your opinion in this case is correct, you have completely supported the premise that they have done it to make it as near impossible as they can for people to find useful information without paying.

FindMyPast are the architects of their own downfall in this matter.  Nowhere on their promotional emails and blogs for the 1939 did they say there would be a separate charge.  Even people like Peter Calver at Lost Cousins were offering a discount on FindMyPast subscriptions (which they must have supplied the code to him for) on the basis that the 1939 would be included. 

It was only at the very end, just before the release, that the separate charges were announced.  The evasiveness of FindMyPast in response to direct questions on Facebook about the charging was constant for at least a couple of months; all anyone got in answer to the question was that the decision hadn't been made.

You will now have to call an enormous number of people naive for thinking that the 1939 would be included in their subs.  For others who remember the 1911, it was expected, but there has been a massive influx of new researchers since then, plus those who don't use social media.  FindMyPast have not played fair, and now they are reaping what they sowed.

And as for calling people FREELOADERS - that is grossly insulting.  I can't AFFORD to use the 1939; luckily I'm old enough that I know what my parents and grandparents were doing then and where they were.  You might spare some thought for people who were mislead and paid for a subscription that they could ill afford.

By the by, have you never searched on a website that you weren't subscribed to and found useful information?

[Guy Etchells]

FindMyPast are the architects of their own downfall in this matter.  Nowhere on their promotional emails and blogs for the 1939 did they say there would be a separate charge.  Even people like Peter Calver at Lost Cousins were offering a discount on FindMyPast subscriptions (which they must have supplied the code to him for) on the basis that the 1939 would be included. 

It was only at the very end, just before the release, that the separate charges were announced.  The evasiveness of FindMyPast in response to direct questions on Facebook about the charging was constant for at least a couple of months; all anyone got in answer to the question was that the decision hadn't been made.

You will now have to call an enormous number of people naive for thinking that the 1939 would be included in their subs.  For others who remember the 1911, it was expected, but there has been a massive influx of new researchers since then, plus those who don't use social media.  FindMyPast have not played fair, and now they are reaping what they sowed.

And as for calling people FREELOADERS - that is grossly insulting.  I can't AFFORD to use the 1939; luckily I'm old enough that I know what my parents and grandparents were doing then and where they were.  You might spare some thought for people who were mislead and paid for a subscription that they could ill afford.

By the by, have you never searched on a website that you weren't subscribed to and found useful information?

I take it you have so much money you could not be bothered to read the terms and conditions to what you were signing up for.
It has clearly stated in the terms and conditions since 10 April 2014 in the section Changes to the website or records:

"Sometimes, if we launch a major new collection, we might make a separate charge for it, but this is rare."

You are therefore wrong in saying you were not warned.
The 1939 is the largest project that any online provider has launched it is bigger than the 1911 census which was launched as pay as you go before being included in the subscription so why should the 39 be any different?

We are not in the school playground this is real life companies have a legal duty to make a profit.
FindMyPast warned all subscribers that there would be new datasets that would not be included in their subscriptions.
Take a look for yourself it is online at http://www.rootschat.com/links/01gic/

Cheers
Guy

[ReadyDale]

I take it you have so much money you could not be bothered to read the terms and conditions to what you were signing up for.
It has clearly stated in the terms and conditions since 10 April 2014 in the section Changes to the website or records:

"Sometimes, if we launch a major new collection, we might make a separate charge for it, but this is rare."

You are therefore wrong in saying you were not warned.
The 1939 is the largest project that any online provider has launched it is bigger than the 1911 census which was launched as pay as you go before being included in the subscription so why should the 39 be any different?

We are not in the school playground this is real life companies have a legal duty to make a profit.
FindMyPast warned all subscribers that there would be new datasets that would not be included in their subscriptions.
Take a look for yourself it is online at http://www.rootschat.com/links/01gic/

Cheers
Guy

Guy,
Whilst no-one can deny that FindMyPast's Ts&Cs show they CAN charge extra for any new datasets, it doesn't say they WILL. In fact, the section you quote goes as far as to say this extra charge would be rare. Also, whilst the company has a duty to shareholders (not sure about a "legal duty") to make a profit, they also owe it to shareholders to have a long-term sustainability.
You will always get a minority who want something for nothing, similarly some will always be keen to get any info at (pretty much) any price, most fall between and appreciate everything has a cost. However by heavily publisicing the 1939 Register for many, many months, but not mentioning any extra charge until just days before release (in fact being openly evasive when directly asked), encourages that middle ground to believe this release might fall outside of the "rare" definition. This strategy leads many to trust FindMyPast and lower their customer satisfaction , risking their long term.
Everyone (most) understands that as FindMyPast must see their investment in this project as worthwhie if they are to invest in future projects. Many on here have gone so far as to say they would have been happy to pay an incresed sub to cover it. Personally, I think the PAYG pricing model is probably the correct one, as it discourages look-ups until FindMyPast have recouped a chunk of their investment. However, I do think they pitched the level too high. As with everything, you cannot charge more for something than it is worth to the buyer, regardless of how much it cost you to bring to sale. In this case, the new information it gives is quite small. In my batch of five, I have just one unknown address (which was only unknown owing to the poor transcription on Ancestry of electoral rolls) and three "new" DoBs - two of which are incorrect. Looking at the various dissapointed replies on threads here, my own findings are not unusual.
From what you have said, FindMyPast were in a strong position - Ancestry did not bid and TNA were not in a position to do the work themselves. I think they would have been better off setting a lower household charge, but insisting on a longer exclusivity period. This would alter the "is it worth it" calculation for many people, but still give FindMyPast a chance to recoup investment.
But whatever charging model they used, a simple line at the bottom of the heavy publicity in the months leading up to release saying "owing to the work required in this release, there will unfortunately be an additional charge for viewing". This would have avoided the bad press they are now getting.

[Blue70]

I agree that they got the pricing wrong. I was hoping for free library access but was willing to spend money on this straight away if I considered it a fair price. For me around £6 for one record is too much. Around £25 for five records is also too much.
Three records for £10 would have got me spending money on day one.


Blue

[Guy Etchells]

Guy,
snip
Personally, I think the PAYG pricing model is probably the correct one, as it discourages look-ups until FindMyPast have recouped a chunk of their investment. However, I do think they pitched the level too high. As with everything, you cannot charge more for something than it is worth to the buyer, regardless of how much it cost you to bring to sale. In this case, the new information it gives is quite small. In my batch of five, I have just one unknown address (which was only unknown owing to the poor transcription on Ancestry of electoral rolls) and three "new" DoBs - two of which are incorrect. Looking at the various dissapointed replies on threads here, my own findings are not unusual.
snip
[/quote]

ReadyDale to take your argument one step further if you look at similar costings in the family history market, for instance the cost of a certificate you have a similar amount of information to base you decision on at a cost of almost 50% more.
At least with the 1939 National Registration there is an alternative to paying we can all visit the National Archives and view the records free of charge whereas with certificates if you want the information you are forced to pay the fee.
What in effect we are paying for is two things
1: A National Asset for future generations to access digitally.
2: The convenience of accessing a massive database of records in our own homes anywhere across the world.

If the costs of digitisation had been added to the tax bill taxpayers would have been complaining. Instead users of the on line resource are having to pay a larger proportion per head.

If FindMyPast had added the 39 into the subscription service but put up the price of subscriptions do you not think the same people would be complaining that their subscriptions had gone up because of something they did not need as they were researching prior to 1939?

When compared to having to pay the £42 the NHSIC were charging for a poor transcript we are getting a bargain and viewing an image of the register itself.

If those outside London tot up the costs of travelling to Kew to access the 1939 on the National Archives computers they will soon realise they are getting a bargain as well.
In fact for the majority of people in the country the charge the NHSIC were levying was less than the cost of visiting Kew.

Many people who have viewed the images rather than just the preview have claimed to have discovered information they did not know.
Some have claimed it has broken down long standing brickwalls and many have moaned it has not shown them anything they did not know but admit they have not paid to view an image, so it is not surprising they have not learnt anything.
Cheers
Guy

[ReadyDale]

Guy,
To answer your last point first. I HAVE bought images and I do not feel in hindsight that the very few snippets of new information provide me with value for money - £19 for one new address and 1 new DoB (and that for an offshoot). My next batch would cost £25. At that success rate I cannot justify that outlay. For around the same amount I can purchase the birth and death certs for my GGMother on one line that has finally been cracked (nothing to do with the 1939R) after years of searching. For that I get her (more accurate) DoB, her parents names, where she was born, what her father did, when she died, how she died, possibly another family member as informant, I could go on. To me that is value for money.
I appreciate that for some, the information revealed is a wall-breaker, and I am pleased for them, but looking at the various threads on here, they are in the small minority.
You say this is better value than £42 for a poor transcript, well judging by my own records (and again judging by posts here), the FindMyPast transcriptions don't exactly set the world alight. The images I purchased are the ones that I could be most certain were correct by the cryptic clues available and by using search techniques that, ironically, FindMyPast seem to be closing off. If I had just searched on face value, I could easily have spent almost £42 to get to the correct image, with lots of wasted hits.
It is interesting that you suggest that if people find the current pricing too high, they should travel to Kew and get images for free. That does sit strangely with you previous appeals for people to spend some money so that FindMyPast feel their investment is worthwhile.
I understand you were central to getting this to market and applaud you for that, but just feel FindMyPast could have (a) been more open about charging extra (not just a throwaway line buried in the T&Cs) and (b) used their power in the market (being the only interested party) to achieve a more palatable price point - the suggestion of Blue's of 3 for £10, whilst being not too much under the 25% discount off the bulk (5) rate, is considerably less than the c.£5 each of the bulk cost and even more under the c.£7 single rate.

[ReadyDale]

As if to reinforce my point on lack of transparancy, this from an FindMyPast sub renewel e-mail received today:

Your subscription is fantastic because:
•  It gives you the freedom to view any of the British records on Findmypast
•  You automatically get access to the thousands of new British records we publish every week: your subscription constantly increases in value

No rider to mention the exclusion of the 1939. How difficult can it be??

[StevieSteve]

I wonder if FindMyPast knew the prices they would need to charge would be seen as steep so they chucked in all the maps and stats and stuff. Presumably they're the same for the entire registration district so sound a big add-on but actually dirt cheap to implement

If they make up a significant %age of the cost, then that was a strategic pricing error IMO

[Sloe Gin]

As if to reinforce my point on lack of transparancy, this from an FindMyPast sub renewel e-mail received today:

Your subscription is fantastic because:
•  It gives you the freedom to view any of the British records on Findmypast
•  You automatically get access to the thousands of new British records we publish every week: your subscription constantly increases in value

No rider to mention the exclusion of the 1939. How difficult can it be??

They did exactly the same over the 1911 census.  Downright deceitful IMO.