Re: Training events policy ... first test case

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>
>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>> From: Chander Ganesan <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com>
>>> To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
>>> Sent: 03/11/07, 16:31:33
>>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Training events policy ... first test case
>>>
>>> Actually, I think that its not unusual for us to see a few enrollments
>>> the week before a class... so listing classes that are "next week" is a
>>> good idea - i'm sure this is a trend seen by all training companies....
>>>
>> Here's a possibly crazy idea - how about we remove the 3 or 4 listings from /index.html altogether and replace them with a dynamically generated summary saying something like:
>>
>> "There are 24 training events in 9 countries scheduled over the next 6 months from OTG, EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt, 2nd Quadrant and others. View the complete schedule to find the PostgreSQL training you want."
>>
>> The numbers are easy to calcuate of course, and we could just grab 3 or 4 company names randomly.
>>
>
> I like it. Takes away the whole problem, really. So +1 from me.
>
>
I've got mixed feelings about it, for a few reasons:

- The problem, as I see it, is really in culling from the list those
companies that post training events to achieve one of the following:
A. Gain "front page" status by posting events they have no
intention of running (this definitely addresses that).
B. Gan "overwhelming odds" status by listing a whole lots of
events, the majority of which they never intend to run. I know of a
number of different training companies (not all of which offer
PostgreSQL training) that do the following:
- List courses in many cities at once for lead generation.
- Follow up with those leads by "consolidating" them into a
single class they run in a single city.

Consider that when you advertise on Google if you have three impressions
per page (say 2 natural search results and a single paid result) your
leads actually go up by more than a factor of three...the more
impressions the better results, and the response is non-linear.

The same thing occurs with the PG training page. Legitimate providers
are unable to compete as effectively because they list courses they
intend to run...and not a mashup of courses designed to generate leads.

The proposal drives people to look at a training page, and limits those
"front page" impressions. However it does not address the fact that
when someone goes to the training page they have to somehow sift through
an immense amount of courses, many of which may not run, and many of
which are designed for lead generation, rather than to drive enrollment
in a single class.

The question is really, how do you weed out the legitimate courses from
the not-so-legitimate ones? I think that there isn't a really "good"
way, and hence some sort of restriction... Some ideas:

- Have training providers provide the name of their instructors and a
few references, then limit them to posting courses that those
instructors would be able to teach (and an instructor can't be in two
places at once). This however placed an undue burden on PGDG, since now
you have to weed out instructors.
- Have providers pay a non-trivial administrative fee to list a course
($1000 per course listing?) . A small fee would be a license to ill, a
larger fee however would serve as a deterrent (and the fee is a
donation..). This however places an undue burden on smaller companies
or companies that are venturing into this area and thus stymies growth.*
- Have providers pay a non-trivial fee for each course over the 8 per
year free listings. Say 8 free listings per year, others are $1000
apiece. This would allow EDB's and OTG's to legitimately list courses
they intend to offer, and prevent "spam" type postings.*

My guess is that those folks that aren't legitimate will probably start
to drop off when they find the cost of using bait and switch techniques
becomes unfeasible.

8 a month works even better for those growing companies. They can offer
lots of courses at the start of the year (back to back, whatever) and if
they are successful they can pay the fee to continue the practice later
in the year.

I like the third one, it allows for community growth, and the regular
courses offered by BNR, Modern, and others. If a company really plans
to offer 30+ courses a year and run them, I'm sure that they wouldn't
mind paying a bit extra...especially considering they are "cleaning up"
running all those courses with the large frequency.

In general, people, once they enroll or are in contact with a single
vendor, don't go out of their way to search for something else unless
their experience (taking a crappy course) drives them elsewhere. If I
have someone enroll and tell them that they have to wait until next
month, or fly to some other city for the course, they won't be
happy...but more times than not they will most likely do it...since it
saves them the work of looking elsewhere for training. It's a sad thing
to say, but I think its the truth. An example for us was a Sony
subdivision company. They went somewhere else for training and
absolutely hated it...their training was someone with some unix admin
experience, but almost no PG experience. Their course was originally
scheduled in the LA area, but they ended up having to fly to a different
city for the course. At the time, they were even reluctant to provide
the name of the company, since they were considering pursuing legal
action to get their money back

When they looked to train other staff they called and gave us the third
degree, asked for references, asked technical questions, asked about
experience, etc. I think if customers did that right off the bat, the
whole training industry would be a lot smaller....

--
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC 27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999
http://www.otg-nc.com