ATX Early Bird Discount

[Robin]

Hi Everybody,

I just wanted to verify that ATX's 10% renewal discount runs through June 30th? I question my memory because I received an e-mail today referencing May 31 as the discount period. Today's e-mail also advertised a contest drawing, so it may be different.

Robin

[Pacun]

I got the same offer too. I just got the email, I haven't checked the old fashioned pony express mail.

[redux]

I got the same offer too. I just got the email, I haven't checked the old fashioned pony express mail.

I have their original letter to me in front of me as we speak. It clearly states "You must order by June 30 to get the 10% discount."

The email today is for entry into the contest if you renew by May 31 2007...you would get the 10% discount AND be entered into the contest IF YOU MENTION THE "CODE."

[JohnH]

Next thing they'll be offering is to mention the code, do a little pirouette, and click your heels together 3 times. Are they selling tax software or used cars?

I received an Ultra Tax mailing today that took on the question of how long CCH will continue to maintain and support 3 different tax software systems. Looks like they have set themselves up for quite a marketing battle. The good news may be that deals can be negotiated this year that are better than the "ealry bird" offers that anyone is tossing out there right now.

[kcjenkins]

I also got the same e-mail, offering the contest if we renew in May. Chance to win $3K, or $2K, or $1K. Hey, SOMEONE is going to win it. And actual odds depend on the number who renew within the deadline. Could be better than they estimate. By the way, I also got THIS email today:

“We are pleased to offer you special pricing, and lock that pricing in for three years! Simply show us your ATX price renewal, and we will meet you halfway between your old renewal and Ultra Tax CS renewal prices. And we will not increase those prices for three years!”

So they are all playing the game in their own way. What Ultra Tax is not saying is that to match my ATX package form for form, Ultra Tax renewal price would be somewhere in the $6000 to $8000 range – maybe higher. So their meeting me half-way would still cost me $3000 to $5000 or more per year – WITHOUT any price increases.

ATX, even with all of its blemishes, still looks like the best option for MY buck this year. And I know, too, that there will be other 'special offers' made to us next year, to convert.

[redux]

I also got the same e-mail, offering the contest if we renew in May. Chance to win $3K, or $2K, or $1K. Hey, SOMEONE is going to win it. And actual odds depend on the number who renew within the deadline. Could be better than they estimate. By the way, I also got THIS email today:

“We are pleased to offer you special pricing, and lock that pricing in for three years! Simply show us your ATX price renewal, and we will meet you halfway between your old renewal and Ultra Tax CS renewal prices. And we will not increase those prices for three years!”

So they are all playing the game in their own way. What Ultra Tax is not saying is that to match my ATX package form for form, Ultra Tax renewal price would be somewhere in the $6000 to $8000 range – maybe higher. So their meeting me half-way would still cost me $3000 to $5000 or more per year – WITHOUT any price increases.

ATX, even with all of its blemishes, still looks like the best option for MY buck this year. And I know, too, that there will be other 'special offers' made to us next year, to convert.

I have come to the same conclusion. After trying the many demo's out there, I feel that the "forms" input is the best approach...as opposed to the alternative input methods available. While some are, at least price wise, attractive, the ease of use is not. Navigating from input screen to a form is awkward at best. I know also that using a new method of input would eventually lead to a feeling of awkwardness for the form input method. It's all in how you look at it, the fly said as he landed on the mirror.

I'm not at all happy with the new regime at ATX but, I don't think I'd be happy if I shoot myself in the foot either. So for 2007, I think I'll overlook the new company's arrogance and re-enlist.

While I don't need to apologize to anyone for "sticking" with ATX, I don't want anyone to look at my decision as an endorsement either. We each have to do what we feel is best for our respective situation, including full disclosure of the software we're using (under oath, of course). :P

[JohnH]

Just speculating, but there could be another "contest" at work here. What if CCH were pitting its three products against one another during the early renewal period, with the intention of eliminating one (or two) for the 2007 season? So those who had signed up in advance for one of the losers would then get a nice letter about how, after careful review, it's "not in the company's best interest" to continue their product. If this happened late in the year, many would be sucked in simply due to inertia.

This would be followed, of course, with a nice run of corporate doublespeak about how the upgrade to the more expensive product (maybe even with a puny price concession for a season or two) will really benefit your firm and so on and so on. This whittling down process can be quote effective in retaining customers who get trapped and just don't have adequate time to research the alternatives late in the year.

I've seen this exact scenario played out in another setting, and when all the winnowing was done the company came out much better financially that if they had tipped their hand early in the process. The only losers were their customers, but who cares about those dolts anyhow as long as revenue targets are being met?

[redux]

Just speculating, but there could be another "contest" at work here. What if CCH were pitting its three products against one another during the early renewal period, with the intention of eliminating one (or two) for the 2007 season? So those who had signed up for one of the losers would then get a nice letter about how, after careful review, it's "not in the company's best interest" to continue their product. If this happened late in the year, many would be sucked in.

This would be followed, of course, with a nice run of corporate doublespeak about how the upgrade to the more expensive product (maybe even with a puny price concession for a season or two) will really benefit your firm and so on and so on. This whittling down process can be quote effective in retaining customers who get trapped and just don't have adequate time to research the alternatives late in the year.

I've seen this exact scenario played out in another setting, and when all the winnowing was done the company came out much better financially that if they had tipped their hand early in the process. The only losers were their customers, but who cares about those dolts anyhow as long as revenue targets are being met?

John, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the scenario you present comes to fruition. Isn't it the "greed" factor in all its purity that is coupled with the lack of trust we have in this company that makes us even consider such a scenario?

Alternatively, we should consider that once they have made an offer, we have accepted, and consideration is present (our payment) they are obliged by the law of contracts to complete the contract with their performance (their consideration - the delivery of the goods). It seems illogical that they would subject themselves to possible lawsuits by any or all of those harmed by such foolish action as intentional non-performance. While their pocket book may be bulging, being sued by hundreds (or more) businesses whose preparation business suffered financially as a result of a contract violation may not be a thing their pocket book could stand, not to mention the adverse publicity.

[JohnH]

Bob:

Good points, but then I haven't read the fine print in their agreement since I think you can only get to it by renewing. And I'm sure that if this were in the plan, they've paid their lawyers much more to write the renewal agreement than any of us have paid our lawyers to review it.

Although lots of people would threaten to sue, very few (if any)wouild actually go through with it. After all, what are your damages when you have alternative vendors? And what lawyer would start the case without a huge upfront retainer? All over a $1K software package?

In any event, I suspect that they could get by with just refunding the money to anyone who balked, and that too would figure into the strategy. When it's all about the botom line, things get a lot more focused and risks are actually a little easier to predict & manage.

As I said, this is pure speculation.

But I'm doing 3 things to keep my powder dry:

1) Actively evaluating alternatives & planning a fall-back position;

2) Forgetting completely about any early renewal (the savings are peanuts when compared to the risk of making a mistake)

3) Holding out for an extended cancellation period (no questions asked & with full refund) to be sure the product is as advertised once it's delivered.

[redux]

Bob:

Good points, but then I haven't read the fine print in their agreement since I think you can only get to it by renewing. And I'm sure that if this were in the plan, they've paid their lawyers much more to write the renewal agreement than any of us have paid our lawyers to review it.

Although lots of people would threaten to sue, very few (if any)wouild actually go through with it. After all, what are your damages when you have alternative vendors? And what lawyer would start the case without a huge upfront retainer? All over a $1K software package?

John the contract, in this case, is an implied one created by the offer and subsequent acceptance, not by any printed agreement. I agree, that many would threaten to sue but not many would. I would not be surprised, however, to see a class action filed in addition to many individual suits. The standard for breach of a contract such as this, is to put the injured in the position they would have been had the contract been performed. Treble damages ( three times the amount spent) for nonperformance is not unusual plus actual loss of business, if any. There also might be punitive assessments.

I agree, it is a tough row to hoe, but alternative vendors have nothing, or little, to do with a contract breach.

I still do not think any company would purposely subject themselves to the possibility of such a situation I describe. I think they would more likely make subtle changes in the internal workings of the program that would make it less desirable and then tout their more expensive programs that have ALL the bells and whistles. These changes would not violate any such contract that we're discussing but would serve the purpose that you describe...selling the more expensive program.

Time will tell, it's such a same that we feel the way we do about this or any company. I wish you all the best in your software choice. Please keep us posted on your decision.

[TAXBILLY]

Notice also the division within CCH that the ATX program is in ... Universal Tax Systems, which was the parent company of Taxwise that was also taken over. Perhaps Taxwise will be the surviving lower end product.

taxbilly

[Gail in Virginia]

Notice also the division within CCH that the ATX program is in ... Universal Tax Systems, which was the parent company of Taxwise that was also taken over. Perhaps Taxwise will be the surviving lower end product.

taxbilly

Our office used to use TaxWise before we switched to ATX. If the two products were combined to give us the best of each, and at the price of either rather than the pricier products, I think we might actually come out ahead. TaxWIse is not a bad product - they just don't have quite as many forms and in the past were not as responsive to customer feedback. ATX was more responsive, but now that they are owned by CCH they may not be able to be as responsive as they were in the past, which eliminates that difference.

[Don in Upstate NY]

Our office used to use TaxWise before we switched to ATX. If the two products were combined to give us the best of each, and at the price of either rather than the pricier products, I think we might actually come out ahead. TaxWise is not a bad product - they just don't have quite as many forms ...

Agreed! TaxWise is/was also a much more stable product, with (e.g.) ten updates per season instead of hundreds. And with a multi-year contract with the IRS/AARP, they have a more stable customer base. I expect TaxWise to survive.

[JohnH]

Looks like the pressure is intensifying. I received both a voice mail and a fax this week from ATX/Kleinrock concerning renewals, in addition to the emails & mailings already sent in the past couple of weeks. It would have been nice if they had been as diligent back in April about keeping the lines of communication open with existing customers whose money they had already collected.