81–90 of 121 posts
When two parties are signing any non-trivial contract the $2 service fee is insignificant. Reducing it to $0.25 or whatever else isn't going to convince anyone to switch over. It's the brand that matters, and Docusign has successfully built it.
They aren’t as bad as Ticketmaster. But their brand goodwill is similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll never understand using "cheap" for a company name, especially when people who require signatures are usually in very professional environments. - They're positioning themselves to always compete on price, not offerings. - It's professionally embarrassing to use a product named "cheap" anything. I have so much trouble recommending namecheap.com to my clients because of this. They're reliable and budget friendly b…
I thought the same thing about SurveyMonkey, but here we are—it’s used everywhere, including for all kinds of SeriousBusiness™ use cases. I think if the product is really good enough, nobody cares what it is called. EDIT: Another example: NameCheap. Great service. Nobody cares that it has that in the name.
Can anyone describe the target market here? Docusign and others have monthly sub rates that would drive the per-signature way lower for large volumes.
I know bikeshedding about names is discouraged, but in the case of signatures, isn't there a desire to evoke a "trust" feeling? It's hard to tie "cheap" to "trust". Some other synonym like "eco" might project trust better.
As a technologist, I would appreciate something more for less, like a record of of the signature's provenance.
When two parties are signing any non-trivial contract the $2 service fee is insignificant. Reducing it to $0.25 or whatever else isn't going to convince anyone to switch over. It's the brand that matters, and Docusign has successfully built it.
Imagine you are a real estate company that manages 10s of thousands of properties, and you have people sign an application fee, and then a lease agreement. If it’s trivial to switch over, why not save the 10s of thousands of dollars? Not all usecases are 1 on 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll never understand using "cheap" for a company name, especially when people who require signatures are usually in very professional environments. - They're positioning themselves to always compete on price, not offerings. - It's professionally embarrassing to use a product named "cheap" anything. I have so much trouble recommending namecheap.com to my clients because of this. They're reliable and budget friendly b…
I thought the same thing about SurveyMonkey, but here we are—it’s used everywhere, including for all kinds of SeriousBusiness™ use cases. I think if the product is really good enough, nobody cares what it is called. EDIT: Another example: NameCheap. Great service. Nobody cares that it has that in the name.
SurveyMonkey is using a fun name for boring surveys.
NameCheap is positioning itself as the cheapest place to buy items that are already cheap. $5 at NameCheap vs $10 somewhere else.
If you sign a legally binding document for a property or a business deal, the last thing you want to hear is "let's do it the cheap way and save $1.75".
I know bikeshedding about names is discouraged, but in the case of signatures, isn't there a desire to evoke a "trust" feeling? It's hard to tie "cheap" to "trust". Some other synonym like "eco" might project trust better.
I disagree and don’t think of cheap as being bad. If used honestly, I think it’s a good way of using accurate language to describe a brand. Sometimes a cheap burger or a cheap taco is the best. For signatures, I think this works. I don’t think I would skimp on important, non-commodity things. I think it’s funny and off putting when brands try to overestimate their importance. I don’t want a “signature experience” jus…
But it doesn't really work for signatures. If I'm signing things related to my mortgage, or VC financing, or an affidavit or something, it isn't equivalent to "cheap taco," but rather something like "fancy fine dining."
I'd be willing to pay a premium to ensure nothing goes wrong with the documents that will delay a closing process. And if I were a lawyer or similar professional, I think I'd also want to convey that premium image. I'm not buying a "signature experience," but I might be a buying house, where a want a "trusted transaction." Which is why I'm hiring a professional and not going DIY.
DocuSign is completely free if all you use it for is to sign documents and download the signed copy. They only charge you for using the platform to return or send documents to be signed. I've used it for years at no cost at all.
Now for $2 you can help people stop using Adobe. :)
I know bikeshedding about names is discouraged, but in the case of signatures, isn't there a desire to evoke a "trust" feeling? It's hard to tie "cheap" to "trust". Some other synonym like "eco" might project trust better.
But at least do yourself a favour and find another merit to sell your product on that isn’t ”cheaper than the usual guys”