Deriving Accurate Sales Projections ???
Peter Olcott
I received a BSBA degree in 1986 and spent about 30,000 hours during the last
20
years preparing to start a business. I recently received a patent on technology
that provides substantial labor cost savings to (especially business) computer
users.
This technology has no reasonable alternatives. I designed three products based
on this technology, and intend to begin marketing at least one of these
products
within a year.
I want to be able to derive accurate sales projections for at least one of
these
products. How would I best go about doing this myself?
Thanks
John A. Weeks III
In article <12os4cd...@news.supernews.com>,
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote:
> I want to be able to derive accurate sales projections for at least one of
> these products. How would I best go about doing this myself?
The most accurate method would be to start selling the product,
then check to see how many you sold 12 months from now. That will
give you the real world number. If you have spent 30,000 hours on
this, waiting another 8760 hours to get the answer shouldn't be that
big of a deal, and you may get a bunch of customers in the process.
If you don't make any sales, at least all you lose is a year of time,
and haven't spent a year at a high burn rate that a software house
would run at.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
NC
Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> I recently received a patent on technology that provides
> substantial labor cost savings to (especially business)
> computer users.
This may or may not mean anything. The world is filled
to the brim with patents the vast majority of which expire
worthless.
> This technology has no reasonable alternatives. I designed
> three products based on this technology, and intend to begin
> marketing at least one of these products within a year.
Marketing how?
> I want to be able to derive accurate sales projections for at
> least one of these products. How would I best go about doing
> this myself?
It depends on what sales channels you use, how much you
advertise, etc. There is no way to estimate it accurately.
The hardest part is the adoption curve. Let's say you figure
your potential install base is 10 million computers. How long
will it take you to get this kind of install base? Depends on
how fast users and system administrators will adopt your
product; there is also a distinct possibility that they won't
(if, for example, your product is perceived as too expensive
or capable of compromising security).
Cheers,
NC
Peter Olcott
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:12p3h8q...@news.supernews.com...
>
> In article <12os4cd...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to be able to derive accurate sales projections for at least one of
>> these products. How would I best go about doing this myself?
>
> The most accurate method would be to start selling the product,
> then check to see how many you sold 12 months from now. That will
> give you the real world number. If you have spent 30,000 hours on
> this, waiting another 8760 hours to get the answer shouldn't be that
> big of a deal, and you may get a bunch of customers in the process.
> If you don't make any sales, at least all you lose is a year of time,
> and haven't spent a year at a high burn rate that a software house
> would run at.
>
> -john-
I need these figures so that I can get an investor. As it stands now I have
enough money to finish the product, and then I am totally out of money,
immediately. I have exactly one year's worth of funding of my basic living
expenses.
Peter Olcott
> then check to see how many you sold 12 months from now. That will
> give you the real world number. If you have spent 30,000 hours on
> this, waiting another 8760 hours to get the answer shouldn't be that
> big of a deal, and you may get a bunch of customers in the process.
> If you don't make any sales, at least all you lose is a year of time,
> and haven't spent a year at a high burn rate that a software house
> would run at.
>
> -john-
I need these figures so that I can get an investor. As it stands now I have
Peter Olcott
> Marketing how?
My current plan (based on Geoffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm") is to recruit
software service companies as strategic partners that would provide the required
support and services needed for the"Whole Product" to get the pragmatists to
adopt my technology. This would open up a whole new market for these software
service companies.
They would essentially be franchisees of my technology and would pay me 10% of
their gross, as their franchise fee. I would pay them 25% commission on every
copy of my software that they sell. They would provide custom software services
based on my technology.
The gist of these services would involve studying ways to reduce computer user
labor costs using my technology, and then performing custom software development
to implement these productivity improvements. A preliminary study done at the
Corps of Engineers indicated that about half of the computer users would
substantially benefit from this technology in a total of four different ways.
> It depends on what sales channels you use, how much you
> advertise, etc. There is no way to estimate it accurately.
> The hardest part is the adoption curve. Let's say you figure
Probably direct sales initially. Each software service company would have at
least one person dedicated to selling these services full time.
> your potential install base is 10 million computers. How long
75 million just counting U.S. business computer users. I would not push the
worldwide or home markets initially, and would probably focus on specific types
of business customers initially. Every potential customer gets a free
preliminary study to see if there is any way that they can substantially
benefit. No tricks here, accurate estimates of time saved. This lets them
accurately determine the costs and benefits before spending any money. The
benefits can be guaranteed within the statistical threshold of uncertainty
(example plus or minus 20%).
We begin focusing on contiguous groups of customers (such as a particular
industry) where the benefit to cost ratio is the highest. We stay within the
segment until we dominate it, then move on to the next strategic segment.
> will it take you to get this kind of install base? Depends on
> how fast users and system administrators will adopt your
> product; there is also a distinct possibility that they won't
> (if, for example, your product is perceived as too expensive
> or capable of compromising security).
So test marketing this software with actual businesses might be a good way to
estimate the adoption curve. What is the most accurate way of estimating this
adoption curve that can be done before the product exists?
Peter Olcott
"NC" <n...@iname.com> wrote in message news:12p5u6k...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>> I recently received a patent on technology that provides
>> substantial labor cost savings to (especially business)
>> computer users.
>
> This may or may not mean anything. The world is filled
> to the brim with patents the vast majority of which expire
> worthless.
>
>> This technology has no reasonable alternatives. I designed
>> three products based on this technology, and intend to begin
>> marketing at least one of these products within a year.
>
> Marketing how?
My current plan (based on Geoffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm") is to recruit
software service companies as strategic partners that would provide the
required
support and services needed for the"Whole Product" to get the pragmatists to
adopt my technology. This would open up a whole new market for these software
service companies.
They would essentially be franchisees of my technology and would pay me 10% of
their gross, as their franchise fee. I would pay them 25% commission on every
copy of my software that they sell. They would provide custom software services
based on my technology.
The gist of these services would involve studying ways to reduce computer user
labor costs using my technology, and then performing custom software
development
to implement these productivity improvements. A preliminary study done at the
Corps of Engineers indicated that about half of the computer users would
substantially benefit from this technology in a total of four different ways.
>
>> I want to be able to derive accurate sales projections for at
>> least one of these products. How would I best go about doing
>> this myself?
>
> It depends on what sales channels you use, how much you
> advertise, etc. There is no way to estimate it accurately.
> The hardest part is the adoption curve. Let's say you figure
Probably direct sales initially. Each software service company would have at
least one person dedicated to selling these services full time.
> your potential install base is 10 million computers. How long
75 million just counting U.S. business computer users. I would not push the
worldwide or home markets initially, and would probably focus on specific types
of business customers initially. Every potential customer gets a free
preliminary study to see if there is any way that they can substantially
benefit. No tricks here, accurate estimates of time saved. This lets them
accurately determine the costs and benefits before spending any money. The
benefits can be guaranteed within the statistical threshold of uncertainty
(example plus or minus 20%).
We begin focusing on contiguous groups of customers (such as a particular
industry) where the benefit to cost ratio is the highest. We stay within the
segment until we dominate it, then move on to the next strategic segment.
> will it take you to get this kind of install base? Depends on
> how fast users and system administrators will adopt your
> product; there is also a distinct possibility that they won't
> (if, for example, your product is perceived as too expensive
> or capable of compromising security).
So test marketing this software with actual businesses might be a good way to
estimate the adoption curve. What is the most accurate way of estimating this
adoption curve that can be done before the product exists?
>
> Cheers,
> NC
>
>
John A. Weeks III
In article <12p8s1o...@news.supernews.com>,
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote:
Then you need to change what you are selling. Rather than selling
hopelessly complex technology, you need to start selling the dream.
Start off by finding another investor. Sell the company as one that
has a product that is 98% finished, and just needs a little more
money to bring it to market. After you get that money, then sell
the dream to the next investor, this time telling him that the last
guy put all the money into it to get it to market, and now you just
need someone to bring it that last 1% and reap all the rewards.
After you get all of their money, then go after a big fish, and
use the same story. The last guy funded it right up to the point
where it was just going to go big, and then they were tapped out.
A new investor can step in with a little cash, and reap the big
reward. Just keep selling the dream, and everything else will
fall in place.
NC
Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> What is the most accurate way of estimating this adoption curve
> that can be done before the product exists?
Focus groups. But professionally run focus groups can be expensive.
Expect to pay at least high four digits...
Cheers,
NC
Peter Olcott
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:12pap91...@news.supernews.com...
>> I need these figures so that I can get an investor. As it stands now I have
>> enough money to finish the product, and then I am totally out of money,
>> immediately. I have exactly one year's worth of funding of my basic living
>> expenses.
>
> Then you need to change what you are selling. Rather than selling
> hopelessly complex technology, you need to start selling the dream.
> Start off by finding another investor. Sell the company as one that
> has a product that is 98% finished, and just needs a little more
> money to bring it to market. After you get that money, then sell
> the dream to the next investor, this time telling him that the last
> guy put all the money into it to get it to market, and now you just
> need someone to bring it that last 1% and reap all the rewards.
> After you get all of their money, then go after a big fish, and
> use the same story. The last guy funded it right up to the point
> where it was just going to go big, and then they were tapped out.
> A new investor can step in with a little cash, and reap the big
> reward. Just keep selling the dream, and everything else will
> fall in place.
My highest priority it to complete the first step of your plan, I just need a
way to as much as possible accurately quantify this dream before I even have
the
product. The product design is 100% complete right now.
Peter Olcott
"NC" <n...@iname.com> wrote in message news:12pdbrj...@news.supernews.com...
I have no money to spend, yet now that I know the right direction to go, I can
go there. I have a BSBA degree, so I should be able to study up on this and
derive plausible results. Alternatively I could finish the product and do
market
studies with the actual product.
What do you think of this?
goba...@gmail.com
I have a client with a very similar problem. He developed a website
without any kind of customer reaction and then ran out of money. Since
I run focus groups (barryfeig.com) and have written several books about
them (hotbuttonmarketing.net)he asked me to put the final naill in the
coffin.
Something funny happened, though. We changed the positioning and found,
that indeed, his product had merit. We explored different positionings
and different avenues of distribution. More importantly, we were able
to show a PowerPoint presentation based on the groups.
He's still tyring to get more money, and although he now has the ammo,
his prior failure is making investors scared. Yes, focus groups are
expensive, but it's still the best way to determine the strength of
your product and the message you need to send.
Unfortunately, you should have done this before you spent the money.
But good luck in getting that last big investor.
Peter Olcott
<goba...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:12pgtkp...@news.supernews.com...
I never had the money. I have put 30,000 hours into this invention since 1986.
It substantially reduces business computer users labor costs. No alternative
technology can accomplish this without infringing my patent. I spent at least
1,000 hours making sure than no one could design around claim 16 of my patent.
Since there are only 100 words in this claim, that's about ten hours on each
word.
I am looking for someone with lot's of software product marketing experience,
and a little bit of cash. Preliminary market studies show that this product has
great potential. The main reason that I am here is to learn how to maximize the
validity (and thereby credibility) of subsequent market studies.
Gary Peek
Peter Olcott wrote:
> It substantially reduces business computer users labor costs. No alternative
> technology can accomplish this without infringing my patent.
Well, Peter, this is the second time you have told us how good
this technology is, (and how well it is protected by patent)
but you have still not told us what it does for business users.
Gary Peek
Industrologic, Inc.
--
Gary Peek mailto:pe...@industrologic.com
Industrologic, Inc. http://www.industrologic.com
Phone: (636) 723-4000 Fax: (636) 724-2288
Peter Olcott
"Gary Peek" <pe...@industrologic.com> wrote in message
news:12pl4u5...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> It substantially reduces business computer users labor costs. No alternative
>> technology can accomplish this without infringing my patent.
>
> Well, Peter, this is the second time you have told us how good
> this technology is, (and how well it is protected by patent)
> but you have still not told us what it does for business users.
>
> Gary Peek
> Industrologic, Inc.
www.SeeScreen.com
SeeScreen reduces computer user labor costs two ways:
(1) Fully automating tasks previously requiring human operators.
(2) Speeding up commonly repeated computer user actions
I am going to focus on the latter aspect first because the market is wide open
for this benefit of my technology. The primary benefit of this technology over
any other technology is that it can always "see" where to click the mouse. This
means that it can automate mouse actions.
There are many cases where the capability to perform complex sequences of mouse
and or keyboard actions triggered from a single keystroke can drastically
reduce
the time and effort required for certain user actions. Never before has there
ever been any product that could fully automate any sequence of mouse actions.
This product will also be very easy to use. Most anyone can learn to use the
product in a few minutes.
My optimistic outlook was that if this product could save 1/3 of the 75 million
U.S. business computer users only five minutes a day, (and they only earned
$10.00 per hour) it would be worth $5 billion per year in savings, and $2.5
billion in total gross revenue at a price of $99.95 from selling exactly one
license to each of the 25 million users. This estimate ignores future upgrades,
and ignores the worldwide market.
Preliminary market studies indicate that the estimate of savings may be
conservative. One preliminary study done at the U.S Army Corps of Engineers
indicated that at least half of the business computer users would save
substantially more than five minutes a day, and most of these people make
substantially more than $10 per hour.
It would seem that the primary focus of any initial market research would need
to more accurately quantify the degree of potential savings. Another study
would
need to be performed to determine the actual likelihood of purchases from this
target market.
Gary Peek
Peter Olcott wrote:
> www.SeeScreen.com
> SeeScreen reduces computer user labor costs two ways:
> (1) Fully automating tasks previously requiring human operators.
> (2) Speeding up commonly repeated computer user actions
>
> I am going to focus on the latter aspect first because the market is
> wide open for this benefit of my technology.
The technology sounds interesting, but it would seem like you would want
to just sell it to a large software company rather than try to sell software
using it.
Number 2 sounds like a macro program, so unless the demo version available
for download is so incredibly simple that it blows people away, it is going
to be tough to sell.
What remains to be done?
Peter Olcott
"Gary Peek" <pe...@industrologic.com> wrote in message
news:12pm02a...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> www.SeeScreen.com
>> SeeScreen reduces computer user labor costs two ways:
>> (1) Fully automating tasks previously requiring human operators.
>> (2) Speeding up commonly repeated computer user actions
>>
>> I am going to focus on the latter aspect first because the market is
> > wide open for this benefit of my technology.
>
> The technology sounds interesting, but it would seem like you would want
> to just sell it to a large software company rather than try to sell software
> using it.
The problem is that the going rate for this kind of a sale is less than 1/10 of
1% of its true value. Besides this, the battle against the NIHS (Not Invented
Here Syndrome) is just about as difficult as starting a company from scratch.
Also the further that I can proceed with a company, the larger the eventual
buyout will be.
>
> Number 2 sounds like a macro program, so unless the demo version available
> for download is so incredibly simple that it blows people away, it is going
> to be tough to sell.
This what I am shooting for, the product design is complete, and should qualify
for patent protection on its own merit. It also has occurred to me that the
most
advanced features might sell much better as a combined software product and
service. I could recruit software service companies as strategic partners.
Essentially we would be selling increased productivity that (often) pays for
itself in less than a month. We could sell this as a free productivity study
that can provide money back guaranteed results. The study is free, and we tell
the client how much it will cost and how much it will save, we can guarantee
both the costs and the savings. It is relatively easy to precisely quantify the
savings.
>
> What remains to be done?
About one month to a proof of concept working prototype, and something like six
months to a commercial product. This is the culmination of about 30,000 hours
worth of work since 1986.
Peter Olcott
"Gary Peek" <pe...@industrologic.com> wrote in message
news:12pm02a...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> www.SeeScreen.com
>> SeeScreen reduces computer user labor costs two ways:
>> (1) Fully automating tasks previously requiring human operators.
>> (2) Speeding up commonly repeated computer user actions
>>
>> I am going to focus on the latter aspect first because the market is
> > wide open for this benefit of my technology.
>
> The technology sounds interesting, but it would seem like you would want
> to just sell it to a large software company rather than try to sell software
> using it.
>
> Number 2 sounds like a macro program, so unless the demo version available
> for download is so incredibly simple that it blows people away, it is going
> to be tough to sell.
>
> What remains to be done?
>From your lack of response it seems that I am left with only one choice. The
only thing that is going to be sufficiently convincing is the fully operational
working prototype. I must proceed with my original plan. That is to do
before-and-after time-and-motion studies on a stratified random sample of my
target market.
Somehow some way, after I accurately quantify the specific degree of benefit, I
must derive an accurate assessment of the conversion rate into actual sales.
This latter step will be the largest challenge.
Gary Peek
Peter Olcott wrote:
>From your lack of response it seems that I am left with only one choice. The
> only thing that is going to be sufficiently convincing is the fully
operational
> working prototype.
I apologize if I have made you feel like I am ignoring you,
but yes, I think the working prototype is going to work
best for this type of product, if not for the technology too.
Peter Olcott
"Gary Peek" <pe...@industrologic.com> wrote in message
news:12pqdhm...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>From your lack of response it seems that I am left with only one choice. The
>> only thing that is going to be sufficiently convincing is the fully
> operational
>> working prototype.
>
> I apologize if I have made you feel like I am ignoring you,
> but yes, I think the working prototype is going to work
> best for this type of product, if not for the technology too.
>From the working prototype and the before-and-after time-and-motion study
quantifying the degree of benefit across the target market of U.S. business
computer users, how do I accurately estimate actual sales?
It might turn out that I can save an average of more than $1,000 per person per
year, and the product only costs $100, yet most buyers simply would not want to
be bothered with changing the way that they do things. How could I get an
accurate measure of this?
Gary Peek
Peter Olcott wrote:
>>From the working prototype and the before-and-after time-and-motion study
> quantifying the degree of benefit across the target market of U.S. business
> computer users, how do I accurately estimate actual sales?
>
> It might turn out that I can save an average of more than $1,000 per person
per
> year, and the product only costs $100, yet most buyers simply would not want
to
> be bothered with changing the way that they do things. How could I get an
> accurate measure of this?
I can't say that I have any idea, other than you will begin to know
as you show the prototype to various business owners (or get feedback
from them after they try a demo verson).
Perhaps some of the other readers of this newsgroup have done something
similar and can help.
Peter Olcott
"Gary Peek" <pe...@industrologic.com> wrote in message
news:12pm02a...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> www.SeeScreen.com
>> SeeScreen reduces computer user labor costs two ways:
>> (1) Fully automating tasks previously requiring human operators.
>> (2) Speeding up commonly repeated computer user actions
>>
>> I am going to focus on the latter aspect first because the market is
> > wide open for this benefit of my technology.
>
> The technology sounds interesting, but it would seem like you would want
> to just sell it to a large software company rather than try to sell software
> using it.
>
> Number 2 sounds like a macro program, so unless the demo version available
> for download is so incredibly simple that it blows people away, it is going
> to be tough to sell.
Automates more user tasks that any other technology!
Automation is far simpler than every alternative product!
Number 2 is a macro program, and unlike any other macro program in the world,
it
can always "see" where to click the mouse. This one feature by itself enables
many
tasks to be automated that were previously impossible to automate.
It also enables the automation of these tasks to be much simpler than ever
before. Because SmartHotKeys can "see" what you are doing, you don't have to
tell it. This enables most of the automation process to itself be fully
automated. I have designed a whole separate infrastructure to enable this last
feature.
Peter Olcott
"Gary Peek" <pe...@industrologic.com> wrote in message
news:12pm02a...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> www.SeeScreen.com
>> SeeScreen reduces computer user labor costs two ways:
>> (1) Fully automating tasks previously requiring human operators.
>> (2) Speeding up commonly repeated computer user actions
>>
>> I am going to focus on the latter aspect first because the market is
> > wide open for this benefit of my technology.
>
> The technology sounds interesting, but it would seem like you would want
> to just sell it to a large software company rather than try to sell software
> using it.
>
> Number 2 sounds like a macro program, so unless the demo version available
> for download is so incredibly simple that it blows people away, it is going
> to be tough to sell.
(Better Formatting)
Automates more user tasks that any other technology!
Automation is far simpler than every alternative product!
Number 2 is a macro program, and unlike any other macro program in the world,
it
can always "see" where to click the mouse. This one feature by itself enables
many tasks to be automated that were previously impossible to automate.
It also enables the automation of these tasks to be much simpler than ever
before. Because SmartHotKeys can "see" what you are doing, you don't have to
tell it. This enables most of the automation process to itself be fully
automated. I have designed a whole separate infrastructure to enable this last
feature.
>
Wayne Sallee
Your web site needs some work. Your home page will send
many away after getting tired of reading. Your product is
supposed to save people time, that sounds interesting, but
your web site wording waist too much of the readers time.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Wayne Sallee
,,,,,,,
Also, to make this improvement, you might want to ask
people that have used your product to write what they
think should be written. Then look at those writings and
you can use those writings to come up with a better
rendition of your web site.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Peter Olcott wrote on 1/5/2007 12:32 PM:
Peter Olcott
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:12qqs1q...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Your web site needs some work. Your home page will send
> many away after getting tired of reading. Your product is
> supposed to save people time, that sounds interesting, but
> your web site wording waist too much of the readers time.
This website is intended for the technical reviewer of a potential investor
Wayne Sallee
Peter Olcott wrote on 1/17/2007 10:22 PM:
> "Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
> news:12qqs1q...@news.supernews.com...
>> Your web site needs some work. Your home page will send
>> many away after getting tired of reading. Your product is
>> supposed to save people time, that sounds interesting, but
>> your web site wording waist too much of the readers time.
>
> This website is intended for the technical reviewer of a potential investor
Even still.
The problem is that when a person who developed a product,
does the writeup, it does not come out as clear and well
written as if someone else goes over it.
It's much like having a person proofread an article.
Another person will see things differently than the writer.
Peter Olcott
Try this one, this one is more intended for the end user:
www.SmartHotKeys.com
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:12r21rq...@news.supernews.com...
Wayne Sallee
It's better, but still needs work.
Have you tried "Recorder" that came free with Windows 3.1?
I still use it. It still works even on Windows xp.
In fact it's what I use to make my signature. Your program
sounds like a repeat of "Recorder".
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Peter Olcott
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:12r5a9m...@news.supernews.com...
>
> It's better, but still needs work.
>
> Have you tried "Recorder" that came free with Windows 3.1?
>
> I still use it. It still works even on Windows xp.
> In fact it's what I use to make my signature. Your program
> sounds like a repeat of "Recorder".
No other technology besides SeeScreen can possibly always "see" exactly where
to click the mouse. Because of this no other technology besides SmartHotKeys
can
always automate any mouse actions. A large gap in the capabilities of
automating
user tasks has now finally been closed.
SmartHotKeys will have its own complete programming language, and thus be
capable of fully automating many complex user tasks that previously required
live human operators.
Wayne Sallee
Recorder does mouse clicks too. The mouse clicks can
sometimes error if the window is not the same.
That's why I always use the key command. All
software will have a key command as an alternative.
I would imagine that you could write a better mouse
click operation, but with so few people using
recorder, I think you will be disappointed in how
few people will want to purchase your software. Not
that your software won't be good, but that people
are not likely to put that much value in your
software to put down the money that you will be wanting.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Peter Olcott wrote on 1/24/2007 6:21 PM:
> "Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Peter Olcott
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:12tjo0u...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Recorder does mouse clicks too. The mouse clicks can
> sometimes error if the window is not the same.
> That's why I always use the key command. All
> software will have a key command as an alternative.
>
> I would imagine that you could write a better mouse
> click operation, but with so few people using
> recorder, I think you will be disappointed in how
> few people will want to purchase your software. Not
> that your software won't be good, but that people
> are not likely to put that much value in your
> software to put down the money that you will be wanting.
The use of this software as a macro recorder has already been subject to one
market study. Half the people the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could save and
average of about 15 minutes a day. Since these people have an average salary in
the $70,000 range, payback of the $99.00 price, would be in about two weeks.
Peter Olcott
One of the uses of my technology would be the current one billion dollar annual
automated application testing market, of which Mercury Interactive is the
market
leader with 59% market share and IBM is number two with a 20% market share. My
technology is very significantly superior to the comparable technology of this
market leader. This technical advantage provides substantial improvements to
the
ease of use and of the end product.
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:12tjo0u...@news.supernews.com...
Peter Olcott
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:12tjo0u...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Recorder does mouse clicks too. The mouse clicks can
> sometimes error if the window is not the same.
> That's why I always use the key command. All
> software will have a key command as an alternative.
>
> I would imagine that you could write a better mouse
> click operation, but with so few people using
> recorder, I think you will be disappointed in how
> few people will want to purchase your software. Not
> that your software won't be good, but that people
> are not likely to put that much value in your
> software to put down the money that you will be wanting.
My whole marketing focus for the last 21 years has been to derive a product
that
can save business far more than it costs, and is not available anywhere else.
Does this seem like a good focus?
Wayne Sallee
I think it is, if you can prove without a doubt that
it will save them much more than they will spend on
the software, and that they will start saving money
in a short time.