Ah, but I disagree with your logic:
By defining VIRTs and points as 2 totally separate entities, each with wildly different abilities (one is usable only in game, and the other seems to be unable to be used in some cases, e.g. VIRTs) you are sending your customers a mixed message on monetization priorities.
After all, I cannot buy VIRTs. I understand your idea that VIRTs gauge customer value, but ultimately, VIRTs are of no value to your company as a money-generating entity, points are, as they are what you can buy. The only caveat I can see to that faulty assumption is if you are earning a tremendous amount of money from your ads, which may or may not be the case (although I do see your defaulting to Google AdWords right now). I fully understand why you have the 100 friends campaign - to drive organic/viral traffic to Virtonomics. However, couldn't you do the same thing by offering points instead of VIRTs? Or sell VIRTs instead of points? Ultimately, you are only offering consumers the ability to purchase one item, when you should allow them to have access to both via monetized options.
Hopefully that explains my aggravation with the system. I really like Virtonomics, but being forced out of a competition because I don't have 5 VIRTs, which are nearly unobtainable at this point in the competition, is a bad business practice, because if I was allowed, I would buy 5 points ($5 USD for your company), convert them to VIRTs, and I'd be happy. But in this scenario, the only way I can get the VIRTs is to either hope that a friend of mine buys VIRTs, or I make a fake account attached to this one, and buy 15 points I will never use. Is that not counter-intuitive? |
