Here are a few questions / observations for discussion:
When someone subscribes to a C2 system that offers a free trial, then subsequently cancels, then signs up again, how is this handled?
a. does he pick up a new free trial starting at day 1.
b. does he continue with where his free trial was when he canceled the time before?
When someone is subscribed to a C2 system that offers a free trial, made it past the free trial, to paid status for several months, cancels, then decides to sign up again, how does C2 handle this?
a. offer the customer an additional full free trial
b. continue the subscription with no free trial
When someone subscribes to a C2 system, and then cancels, is he allowed to write a review?
a. yes, but only if he had paid for a subscription for any length of time, following the free trial.
b. yes, but only if he had paid for a subscription for a minimal of 3 months (assuming 3 months is adequate time to be able to write a knowledgeable review).
c. yes, even if he signed up for only 1 day of which could have been a free trial period if one is offered by the vendor.
d. no, only current subscribers are allowed to write reviews while subscribed, but not during a free trial period, and not after they cancel.
I’ll have a go, based on my own experience I think the answers are
1) a
2) a
3) c
I have had to police subscriber behaviour, if someone has unsubscribed just before a payment was due and then resubscribed for free again you can always manually unsubscribe them yourself (as well as name and shame them on the forum if you find it necessary for a repeat offender). And a subscriber of any status can write a review, either current or after the fact.
I was wondering about the first two questions myself. I’d guess that in both cases, the subscriber has to pay as if there was no free trial, but let’s see what Matthew says.
As for reviews, I subscribed to the free trial and I had the option of writing a review since day 1. There should be at least a few days requirement prior to one being able to review a system.
I unsubscribed earlier today and I am still presented with the form to write a review, we’ll see how long it lasts. It shouldn’t be long, maybe a week or so, just enough to get around to it.
While I am it, Matthew, I unsubscribed from a system today, and it said I would keep getting signals until my paid period ran out. Good, but I didn’t get any e-mail confirmation, the system page still shows me as subscribed, and all the links to unsubscribe are still there. In other words, there’s no indication that I have already unsubscribed, except that if I try to unsubscribe again I get an error. If I were to change my mind and decide to keep my subscription, I don’t see any way to do it, either.
And finally, a little off-topic comment. On the FAQ page, the next-to-last answer says that “Sell to Close” is in order to exit an already-open short position, when it should be long.
"As for reviews, I subscribed to the free trial and I had the option of writing a review since day 1. There should be at least a few days requirement prior to one being able to review a system. "
People on a free trial should not be able to write reviews. They are not real customers. They are often naive about using the system and leave negative but undeserved feedback. Or leave peppy feedback based on ignorance of the experience of a particular vendor. Or a competitor signs up and leaves condemning feedback. Or the vendor himself can free trial, and leave positive feedback without cost.
I would NEVER offer a free trial because of this, and because of those who use multiple aliases to get extended free time.
Gets to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? I’ve had bad experience with most of those.
I had these same concerns, but I ultimately decided to offer a free trial anyhow.
I find it absurd that anyone who has not become a paying customer (i.e. still subscribed after the trial period) is allowed to review a system. As you have pointed out, the reviews from the non-customers are typically irrelevant [or sometimes even amusing 
].
So far I have not had excessive re-subscribers, unless they have been doing so under multiple aliases (which I cannot verify because I do not have access to IP addresses and the ability to match C2 user names with verified credit card names).
Are free trials just given on a per-username basis? They should be matched to credit cards, and to broker accounts in case of Gen2/3 autotrading.
What must be done is to find the best balance between unfounded reviews and survivor bias. If you only allow reviews from people who went through the free trial and then payed for the system for 3 months, you will obviously get mostly good reviews, especially for the most expensive systems. If you give free trials just based on the username and allow reviews since day 1, you will get malicious reviews, unfounded reviews, and all that has been mentioned. It must be somewhere in between.
Normally I just take the issue to Matthew. Then I write the subscriber and ask them if its ok to have Matthew charge their account or I will have to unsub them, and normally they are ok with the charge. If not, you just cut them loose.
"I would NEVER offer a free trial because of this, and because of those who use multiple aliases to get extended free time. "
Hmm, I think the free trial thing needs to be changed so that you can only get 1 freebie. Personally, I am very reluctant to subscribe to systems that DON’T offer a free trial. What are you hiding?
Also as for reviews and so on, there needs to be a much stronger reputation system on c2.
Vendors can then see who they are dealing with, and respond. I think there needs to be “validated” users (by credit card), as with ebay, and as discussed on another thread. And only these users can review, etc, and maintain a reputation (ie votes from other validated users and vendors).
At the moment anyone can create a free account, and run amok with reviews, free trials, and so on, ultimately to tthe detriment of c2, and real users.
"I am very reluctant to subscribe to systems that DON’T offer a free trial. What are you hiding? "
On C2, little is hidden. Every system has a verified track record, equity curve and system stats. And can be compared to all other systems.
"On C2, little is hidden."
Yes, strictly speaking that is true, apart from how the vendor is with support, and all that stuff. But in any case, examining the fossil record is never quite the same as walking with the dinosaurs.
Whatever you’re concerned about, Jack, can be taken from the worst case return, keep after slippage, and a couple other things. It’s amazing to me that there are some systems on here wih spectacularly negative returns worst case, and people still want to subscribe.
I agree, unless it were possible to prove that systems that don’t offer free trials are significantly inferior, then ruling them out on that basis alone just needlessly denies the credentials of otherwise perfectly legitimate and profitable systems.
There are many reasons vendors might make their choice of business model and I don’t think it would be helpful to read too much into it. Initially I went the free trial route but as has been discussed it was open to a lot of abuse and just wasn’t equitable, I have since leant towards the ‘pay per profitable trade’ route as I think it adequately balances the subscribers need for visibility and fairness with my own needs as a vendor.
I don’t really sell a system here so let me chime in as a subscriber. For me, the subscription fee is nothing compared to the damage or improvement a vendor can do in my account.
For that reason, it’s doesn’t matter if a system costs $39 or $1,500 per month - AS LONG AS it pays for itself with profits, low dd, and good use of the funds it demands. Ex., a system is making a consistent 12% a month on his demanded $100k, AND dd is reasonable and contained. Heck, that’s $12,000 profit a month! Should the vendor receive only $199? NO, I would like to pay this vendor $2,000 if he is that good.
Conversely, a FREE system that wants to tie up $50,000, makes risky bets with significant DD’s, then ends the month losing $15,000 can go to hell where it belongs.
IMO in C2 there is little correlation between the fee paid and the result obtained, and that is unfair to both vendors and subs. As Jon said, pay-per-profitable trade comes closest to fair, still it isn’t - in that subs pay a fixed fee, even for trades barely profitable. And for mixed systems (futures, fx, etc there are trades a subs broker can’t/won’t accept, i.e FX at OEC, for instance. C2 won’t allow one system in two brokerages, still will charge subs for all wining trades regardless.
Winning vendors should have limitless earnings as an incentive for good performance. Today it really doesn’t matter if the system wins or loose or stalls. “Yeah, in time some subs may drop out, but so what? they pay close to nothing anyway.” That is an disincentive to good performance, and the consequence is seen in 95% of systems in C2.
In my dreams the perfect compensation system is a percentage of profits.
So a vendor would receive compensation proportional to his systems performance, and subs would gladly pay from proceeds the vendor has earned himself.
That is, of course, if the system is profitable. What if it is not? shouldn’t the vendor be penalized somehow? Not receiving his fee is one way, but it’s not comparable to the damage his losing system can cause in real accounts.
Maybe commissions so earned from winning trades should be placed in a escrow account, to be released after 3 months (averaged), with the balance remaining as reserve that is passive of decrease for losses. This would make it fair to subs, and would even out monthly income to system vendors with non-linear performance.
I see C2 as promoting a partnership between vendors and subs. As such, risks and benefits can and should be shared by both more equitably.
Yeah, all true. But unfortunately C2’s paying vendors as a percentage-of-profits basis is not legal here in the U.S., and so it ain’t gonna happen.
Think that’s a silly regulation? Maybe so, but it isn’t within my power to change.
Correct.
Seems to me, people who offer free trials are either newer or more desperate to get customers. I would PREFER a system that doesn’t. C2 is about clearly evidencing that a given system is good and profitable, A good, established system doesn’t need gimmicks - especially given the negative feedback possible by newbies and and cheating potential from those trying to avoid subscription fees.
Well, there’s one important detail I definitively overlooked… so I will keep on dreaming…
On the free trial issue, I think it is OK the way it is now, with each vendor deciding what he wants to do, and each subscriber choosing accordingly. What has to be available is some sort of trial on a C2 level. New users need some time paper trade a system and make sure that the scaling is correct, that all the software is running smoothly (Gen1), and so on. It happened to me when I had just signed up.
There has to be a way to prevent free trial fraud. Giving trials on a per-credit-card and per-broker-account basis should filter out the majority of duplicate trials. If a vendor chooses not to give free trials, that’s his choice. But that choice shouldn’t be based on fear of abuse.
"There has to be a way to prevent free trial fraud. Giving trials on a per-credit-card and per-broker-account basis should filter out the majority of duplicate trials."
I would strongty agree. After all, if someone would be unwilling to provide their payment method, then how is that showing they are serious about subscribing?
We are already required to provide our credit card details when signing up for a free trial. I assumed it was in part to prevent multiple free trials to the same person, but apparently it’s not.
