A 10GB-sized public relations disaster?

[drkotsius]

I have been following the development of the "Runbox increases all email storage quotas to 10 GB" thread (http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...threadid=38327) with a lot of interest. As a business management professional, I was wondering whether the $50/year Runbox move might result into what may be labelled "a PR disaster". I am pretty sure that Runbox will continue to do pretty well overall, I would just like to find out what everybody thinks about this as a customer relations, public image, brand loyalty issue.

[hobbes]

I dunno. I am actually more interested in Runbox now, particularly with the 1Gig file storage area.

I am pretty sure that Runbox will continue to do pretty well overall

...then it's not quite the PR disaster you were implying.

[carverrn]

It's not "a PR disaster". I'm sure it's not a move that they wanted to make but it's a move they had to make. Just like the when they implemented the bandwidth quotas ... they really didn't have a choice if they intended to stay in business much longer.

Liz and Geir can't continue to be the only two "constant" employees that support all of Runbox. They need the revenues to purchase equipment and hire more people for development and support (which I'm assuming they will do).

They can't compete in the low-end market with companies like Yahoo, Google and Hotmail so why try. Their services are better suited for business and high-end users.

I don't think Runbox really expects anyone to be using anything close to 10G of email anytime soon. I think they needed something more "tangible" to go along with the price increase.

Most of the benefits of the price increase will be in support and development improvements over a period of time. Unfortunately many users seem to forget about those costs which are major expenses.

Regards,
Rich

[rabbit]

Runbox has a history of PR disasters. There was one last year I remember when people flocked out of runbox because of something to do with Yahoo! Groups messages. Runbox just cut them off, without any prior announcement.

[Sherry]

Originally posted by rabbit
There was one last year I remember when people flocked out of runbox because of something to do with Yahoo! Groups messages.

Perhaps if they lost a lot of low end users they may decide to let those using Yahoo! Groups back in? I remember some posts saying they would be willing to pay more to continue using them with Runbox...

Sherry

[carverrn]

Originally posted by rabbit
Runbox has a history of PR disasters. There was one last year I remember when people flocked out of runbox because of something to do with Yahoo! Groups messages. Runbox just cut them off, without any prior announcement.

I believe you're thinking of the bandwidth quotas which happened to mostly effect people who were members of many high-volume Yahoo Groups. It wasn't specifically related to Yahoo! Groups messages though.

Most people who have stayed with Runbox will probably agree that Runbox performance improved after the quotas went into effect.

Regards,
Rich

[suzi]

Originally posted by rabbit
Runbox has a history of PR disasters. There was one last year I remember when people flocked out of runbox because of something to do with Yahoo! Groups messages. Runbox just cut them off, without any prior announcement.

Then you'll also remember how Runbox offered MANY resets to members of the very generous 2.5GB per week. They had no choice about implementing bandwidth immediately but they did their best to please present customers regardless.

[suzi]

Originally posted by drkotsius
I would just like to find out what everybody thinks about this as a customer relations, public image, brand loyalty issue.

Well I think this is all very interesting. Back when free email was less than 10Mb and Runbox was leading the pack offering 100Mb I decided to go for them so I wouldn't need to delete email and could have access to it all wherever I may be. That's how Runbox was advertised and that's how I used it.

Gmail came on the scene and the limit was upped. Again this meant I had no need to think about leaving because Runbox was more than enough for my needs for the ongoing future.

Now Runbox has increased again and I am just as happy as when I first joined. I have lots of space which will take me a heck of a long time to fill and that's exactly what I want. As far as I'm concerned it has always been an email provider offering more at an increased price to the competition.

I don't want an email service where I'm always reaching the limit. I want imap, not pop. I've not once gone over 1% of my bandwidth limit since it was implemented despite being a regular to heavy email user. I like being able to check my emails over wap on my mobile so I can view them on the go. I like being able to have files stored ready for if I want to send out emails and quickly add attachments wherever I am. I like knowing that however big the emails are that I receive, they won't be bounced and I won't go over any limit. I like using email hosting for the domain I bought specifically to use with email. I like having an alias without having to get another email address. I like the filter options. I like all of these things and Runbox offers every one. I don't think in the long run the change in price will make much difference when there are people who want the same as me out there.

[Trip]

Originally posted by suzi
I don't want an email service where I'm always reaching the limit. I want imap, not pop. I've not once gone over 1% of my bandwidth limit since it was implemented despite being a regular to heavy email user. I like being able to check my emails over wap on my mobile so I can view them on the go. I like being able to have files stored ready for if I want to send out emails and quickly add attachments wherever I am. I like knowing that however big the emails are that I receive, they won't be bounced and I won't go over any limit. I like using email hosting for the domain I bought specifically to use with email. I like having an alias without having to get another email address. I like the filter options. I like all of these things and Runbox offers every one. I don't think in the long run the change in price will make much difference when there are people who want the same as me out there.

Simply put, and coherently related to other users such as I who care as well.

Trip

[tim2005]

Still being relatively new to Runbox (I signed up in July 2004), I have found Runbox to be very reliable. What attracted me the most was the easy web interface and online file storage. I'm currently still on a dialup modem (I live in the country) and being able to upload files makes it very easy to send attachments.

Additionally, This has also enabled me to work on files both at home and at work.

I was excited when I saw the increased file storage and to be quite frank, I'll probably never come close to 10 meg worth of email. But it is nice to know Runbox is always trying to stay one step ahead of the game and be proactive versus reactive.

As far as the cost, 50 dollars is not bad at all considering what you get. I just renewed for 29 dollars and will now opt for the 49.95, which will get me three years. At the end of three years, I'll evaluate it again...

Tim

[hellie]

I totally agree with these comments. Although I am not a fan of the web interafce Runbox provides with an excellent secondary email address. Everyone knows it is my back up address. I will never use 10GB of space but it is good to know I can everything without worrying about any limits.

Helen

[carverrn]

fantastico and cpanel? You really should get a regular hosting service for those. You can get web hosting services for less than $5USD/month that give you both of those along with web mail (squirrel mail, horde, neomail).

Regards,
Rich

[odedp]

Originally posted by Trip
Simply put, and coherently related to other users such as I who care as well.

Trip

Me too

Oded

[speedoflight]

Admittedly, it took me a little while after the announcement came out in the News section to find out about the upgrade and price change. I really wish Runbox would email their paid customers about these types of announcements as I am sure many users do not check the News section too often.

$50/year is quite a steep price and almost double of what they've been charging a year today. When I first read of the price hike, I have been re-thinking about the service, i.e. if I need it, what are the benefits, value, etc. etc. Now that I've used the paid service for more than 2+ years, it'd be too painful for me to contact every place I've left my @runbox.com address to. I do want to see improvements to the service for the price that is charged. $50/year puts Runbox into the business users domain as I think average users will likely not pay for it as there are too many freebie Web mail places out there that are now also offering huge mail storage. I'd written in a separate posting about the need for a calendar feature (extremely useful for business users), better and new/improved user interface, etc. etc. While I TOTALLY understand the high prices associated with cost of operating an IT outfit, I do feel that when you have to give the users what they're paying for and it needs to be more than just a larger storage tank. I want to have a reason to keep supporting Runbox for I like supporting small startups. I think Liz, Geir, etc. are wonderful when it comes to Support. Kudos to them. But I hope that they understand the need to put Runbox ahead of the game and that comes with more than just storage space. In 2000, it was a novelty but in 2005, storage space is quite passe. Users are looking for more, i.e. intuitive user interface, Ajax/Flash type interaction, calendars, etc. etc. etc. Think about why Gmail shot into the limelight. It wasn't just because of a larger tank. I hope Runbox will strive to continue to be a leader.

Originally posted by drkotsius
I have been following the development of the "Runbox increases all email storage quotas to 10 GB" thread (http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...threadid=38327) with a lot of interest. As a business management professional, I was wondering whether the $50/year Runbox move might result into what may be labelled "a PR disaster". I am pretty sure that Runbox will continue to do pretty well overall, I would just like to find out what everybody thinks about this as a customer relations, public image, brand loyalty issue.

[henrico]

I totally agree...