Michael S. Johnson wrote, in part..
> But does it *harm* their success?

My suggesting this could be considered a trade secret should suggest to you
that I believe it could.  I apologize for for writing unclearly.

> A vendor unresponsive to suggestions or bug reports is one that I have

IMO, suggesting LSoft is "unresponsive to suggestions or bug reports" is
absurd.  Has anyone ever written to [log in to unmask] expecting a reply and
not received one?  I have written on several occasions and always have
received a reply ... not always the one I wanted, but always a professional
and reasonable response.

> less confidence in and will do less business with.  I am more likely to pay
> for a shareware product, for example, sold by people who stand by their
> products enough to want to receive bug reports and feature suggestions, than
> one that doesn't.  This is because I am more inclined to believe that it is
> worthwhile investing in a product that the company will improve over time to
> adapt itself more to my requirements.  Otherwise, I will be more likely to
> go to a competitor who is more likely to do offer me the functionality that
> I desire.

Agreed.

> It smacks of dishonesty if a company provides a forum for feedback but
> does not acknowledge it.  If it is the policy of a company to not respond or
> to not guarantee a response, then I would like to see that policy spelled
> out somewhere in plain sight.  To do otherwise gives me less faith in the
> company's attention to its customers.

I'm unaware that LSoft provides a feedback forum, other than private
contact via e-mail or telephone.  IMHO, if you believe LSTOWN-L is a
feedback forum, perhaps it would be worth the time to confirm or adjust the
belief?

It's not uncommon to have a group of vendor clients collectively give the
vendor directions.  Perhaps we on LSTOWN-L or LSTSRV-L should more formally
develop a list of "requirements", prioritize them, and ask the vendor to
respond?  It would be helpful to have the vendor support the process, but
not necessary.  Such a process might be a substantial amount of work, but
the result could better focus all of our attentions in areas where LISTSERV
needs enhancements, leading to better vendor confidence of where some
resources should be directed.  Just a thought; not a new thought at that :)

cheers, wayne

Wayne T. Smith                       mailto:[log in to unmask]
Systems Group - UNET                 University of Maine System
LISTSERV maintainer for http://lists.Maine.edu/