The Mindjet Blog

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

TrackBack URL:
http://blog.mindjet.com/2005/05/why-isn%e2%80%99t-everyone-using-mindmanager-and-other-questions-2/trackback/

No Trackbacks/Pingbacks at this time

Reader Comments

1. Posted May 14th, 2005, 8:10 am by Clarke Ching

   For the record: I’m a mind manager convert, but I nearly wasn’t.

   Why? It seemed like a lot of money to spend on a single piece of software for me, as an individual. So it took a long time before I was willing to fork out the money and commit to the software.

   So, if you are serious about spreading the use of MM why not give it away for free to individuals?

   You don’t have to give it away to businesses where the cost is relatively low, but what about a slightly cut-down version that’s free to people not companies?

   Sure, you might lose a few licence fees for the current individual sales (but I presume that individuals are only a small part of your customers) and you might need to increase your server capacity, but imagine if all the kids in the computerised world got to use MM for free … how many of their parents would then use it for their own personal use … how many of those parents would find it so useful that they would then want to use it for work?

   If you are serious about bringing this tool to the world then remove the most obvious impediment - price - and you’ll almost certainly make up the small initial losses very quickly.

   Scary thought?

2. Posted May 14th, 2005, 10:09 am by Ulf Cihak

   While I am using mind manager for many years, I was never totally convinced.
   From the beginning, I missed the possibility to pose ideas freely (without initial connection to the central idea).
   Currently I experiment with CMAP tools (concept mapping).
   By the way … a free tool.

3. Posted May 14th, 2005, 12:37 pm by Bhasker

   It’s all about MS Office. You’ll win a lot more devotees by emphasising how MindManager’s export functionality and how it fits into normal business processes.
   For most people the concept of mind mapping is foreign and far removed from what they are asked to deliver. A lot of my colleagues don’t even want to look at a mind map - but show them Mind Manager exporting to Word / MS Project / Outlook and they are bowled over and keen to learn more.
   A couple of improvements wouldn’t go amiss: improve export to MS Word, add export to Excel, and add some basic document management.

4. Posted May 14th, 2005, 9:37 pm by Robin Capper

   I think Bhasker has a good point with “Its all about MS Office”. If you relate MM to tools people use the chance they’ll try it will increase. MM has not replaced any office application I had prior to using MM but has made EVERY application better by managing the information.

   Also, you are trying to market a concept, not just an application. Unless the office is familiar with mapping its sometimes not seen as “work”. I have actually heard the comment “he’s playing with spiderwebs”!
   The “spiderweb” in question was step by step build for a CAD machine (in case our image gets damaged) and when exported is a 48 page word doc. Never heard anyone said to be “playing with Word” but in a way they were right. In comparision to the export doc editing the map is “childs play”!

5. Posted May 16th, 2005, 8:51 am by J Donnici

   After trying a demo a while back, I know that I’d love to use Mind Manager regularly. Unfortunately, a few things prevent it.

   1. It’s not an easy application to justify as a corporate expense, especially in a startup environment. Most often, the response is along the lines of “isn’t brainstorming what whiteboards or notepads are for?”. Sure, MM goes beyond simple brainstorming, that’s what most people think of when you mention “mind mapping”. While I’d use it often, it’s not something like an email client or word processor that managers/developers spend all day in and is easier to justify.

   2. While that “whiteboard” response ignores all the benefits of MM, it’s coupled with the very high price and makes it a harder pitch. $230 for the basic version and $350 if I want to integrate with Outlook. We pay less for the full Office suite.

   3. While the company won’t yet pay for it, I’d be willing to buy it personally (as I often do with other utilities and programs I find personally valuable, in and out of the office)… here again, the price is prohibitive. If it were $99 for the basic X5 and $199 for the Pro version, that would probably be a no-brainer.

   As it is, there are free/open-source alternatives out there… and while they’re not as nice to look at or as full-featured as MM, they don’t hit my wallet for a few hundred dollars.

6. Posted May 16th, 2005, 9:07 am by Jason Breti

   Tim, I don’t think that you’re on the right track with this one. You are comparing MM with other products in the marketplace that are large leaps above existing products. For example, in the TiVo case, one product is shown to be superior to another because of the convenience it provides above the existing status quo. That kind of rationale only works when products can be compared. (X improves on Y because of Z, where Z is a short explanation.)

   MM is not a product, it is a way of doing something (dare I say it, it is a process). For example, I would compare a MM to a pencil. When you first hand a child a pencil, they start using it to mark things down, but they don’t really gain proficiency in it until much later. Also, it goes in many different directions: some may draw art, others write essays, others draft architectural drawings of bridges, others mark wood with it and build furniture. A MM is much the same way, and this is the biggest problem with it.

   People can immediately see why a TiVo can make their lives easier. They may or may not adopt it quickly, but they see the convenience. OTOH, most people cannot easily see the value of a MM. It appears to be a mess, it appears to be a graphical way of writing a list that they could easily do in a word processor, it is a waste of time because it doesn’t result in an end product that can be used with others (there’s a lot of rework once it’s in MS Word, etc). I hear this all the time.

   People can immediately grasp the value of a TiVo because they have a foundation (TV, VCR) and can imagine the benefits because the extension is not really that much of a jump.

   Most people I run into cannot see the benefit to a MM, even when they see it in use. To them it is a fancy drawing, and ultimately a waste of time, efficiency, or both.

   I have yet to find a good way to show them otherwise, other than continuing to use it. Some see the value over time. You don’t get a tipping point effect here because the benefits of MM are far from immediately visible.

   Oh yes, and I do think that your change in pricing model was a mistake. You used to have a “standard” (cheaper) version that I could convince some people to try on their own. Now many people say that it’s far too expensive to try. Frankly, if I had to start with the existing pricing you had today, I wouldn’t have bought your software either. Now I keep up with the upgrades because I see the value over several years of using the product.

7. Posted May 16th, 2005, 9:25 am by Jason Breti

   Oh yeah, I also forgot. I was listing problems with MM (it being something that solves broad problem spaces rather than narrow problem spaces, like TiVo).

   One other big problem is justifying it on the budget. Companies buy software to solve specific problems. They buy MS Project for scheduling, compilers for building programs, MS Office for word processing, etc.

   But what is MM for? Idea generation and processing? I can tell you that anything even close to that explanation will get it struck from the budget really fast. I have to come up with some sort of specific problem that needs to be solved to justify it.

8. Posted May 16th, 2005, 10:44 am by GET IT

   Households items today got their markets share because they aimed at the mass market through a mass market price. Your product is great but if you don t know how to bring it to the masses, it just another cool invention on a shelf , gathering dust. You need to seriously review your pricing policy. Look at what Gates did with windows, Ford with his Model T, be a member of that list !!!! lower your prices !!!

9. Posted May 17th, 2005, 2:57 am by Sebastian

   Dare I answer, “because there is no version for Apple-users”?

   I would love to test it, even went to the Mindjet-booth at CeBIT. However, one glance at the brochure and one question later I realized, I’ll have to opt for other solutions, because you don’t offer a Mac-version.

10. Posted May 17th, 2005, 8:07 am by Alex

    The price is prohibative, although ultimately worth it. I was an existing mapping user using The Brain when I made the switch. Because I was used to similar software, I was able to see the immediate advantages. However, it may be a harder sell for users unfamiliar with the concept and it’s innate advantages.
    Fortunately, the product has impressive reviews no matter where you look, so that is an immediate attractant. However, it requires dedication to learn and apply the concepts to your work method, and requires a paradigm shift from deeply ingrained hiarchial thinking/programs.
    I also second the Mac version. My next computer will be a Mac (sick and tired of Windows) and I’m going to be very disappointed if I have to purchase yet another program to emulate windows, to continue running MM.
    For a product that highlights creative process, quite frankly I’m surprised you haven’t already done this!

11. Posted May 18th, 2005, 2:12 am by Robin Capper

    I’m surprised to see people consider cost is a major. Especially as a US dollar cost me closer to $2 when I purchased MM yet I didnt think it that expensive for what it did.
    What sold me was seeing it in action, used to run a conference, then being able to run the free trial at home.
    I think the biggest barrier is getting people to try it at all. Once they’re in I suspect the conversion rate is high?

12. Posted May 19th, 2005, 4:17 pm by Tim Leberecht

    Thanks for all your comments — you raise a couple of good points.

    Some remarks: My comparison with TiVo was not based on marketplace but solely on messaging. I referred to TiVo because I wanted to emphasize the importance of a bold message when you have a revolutionary tool to sell. I think this is a legitimate analogy to MindManager: To fully value MindManager, you have to first grasp the technique of mapping and how it fits in your workplace. And in that respect, Jason, the foundation you claim for TivO - the TV set –is exactly what MS office is for us. The tight integration with MS office (and other business applications) is indeed the best way to make people recognize that MindManager is so much more than just a “spiderweb” brainstorming tool; that it is in fact a multi-functional and multi-dimensional interface to information. $349 for a new way, and in fact, a super-easy way of organizing and sharing information and ideas, for software that provides you with unprecented intuitive control over data of all types and sources, plus, unlike many other business applications, is also inspirational and fun to use – is that really too much? If you acknowledge the wide array of use cases and the deep value that comes with MindManager, I really don’t think the price is prohibitive.

    Yet I agree with you, the tricky thing is to demonstrate this deep value, and it is always a challenge not only to convey the power of a visual tool in words but also to hammer home the vertical benefits of truly horizontal software. That’s why you’re right, Robin, our trial-to-purchase conversion rate is high and the moment of truth is showing MindManager and making it “click” with potential users. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who tried MindManager and did not literally see its value – it is more a matter of how to give those who have seen the value the right arguments to convince those who lack the time to try it or are still skeptical. We’ll keep working on it.

    Finally, two more questions: If you had the chance to give away 5 free licenses of MindManager to others, who would you give it to and why? Why are those five people not already using it?

13. Posted May 22nd, 2005, 8:38 am by Steve Newson

    I think there is at least one other key issue about take up that hasn’t yet been covered and that’s in the area of templates and examples. If there was significantly more examples of the way that people have used mapping, case studies of what has been solved, achieved, developed, changed through maps then I think this would significantly accelerate take up.

    If there are 500,000 evangelists out there why are there, comparitively, so few maps that you can download, view and learn from?. I accept that there are intellectual property issues but if I make a comparison with another area of interest - project management - in that domain I can download a document for almost any task I have in front of me - scope document, project plan; you name it I can find it.

    You can’t - yet - say the same about mind mapping. For this reason I don’t think I can agree that a tipping point has been reached. But I do think one can be.

14. Posted May 22nd, 2005, 12:13 pm by Stephen Green

    I’ll share my story. Over a year ago I came to my new Fortune 500 company in the R&D department with MM in tow. I was quickly able to obtain the interest of my director who after showing it to him said, “Anyone in our department who wants to get this can get it.” That is a true visionary. After dispersing 25 copies, having several conversations with IT, and conducting multiple group and personal training sessions we have a group using the software and some good learnings about it.

    1. People who have a system that works for them will not use it. Typically this includes more experienced hires and managers. I found from our 6-month pilot study that about 70% of the users actually took to using it at least 1x per week. Those of us who have been ’searching for a better way’ take almost immediately to the software. Those who are well enveloped in their current system maintain their status quo.

    2. IT resists change - My IT department is quite nice in letting a chemical engineer run a software pilot test. That being said, they like many IT depts are in the throws of cost management and work under the assumption, ‘people have all the software they NEED’. MM was compared to PDA usage. A lot of people got them at one time but not very many people used them.

    3. Usage increases over time. I did find that weekly usage increases as time progressed in our pilot study. We conducted midpoint and final surveys that saw a good increase in the usage rate.

    4. Sharing and collaboration are big beasts to conquer. With the exception of running meetings and giving presentations I have not been able to utilize the full collaborative capabilities of the program. I have done ideations but they are not as effective as they could be with MM. Truly collaborating and using a central map for a project has only happened for a brief time. Alternative technologies such as Sharepoint and Documentum’s Eroom compete with MM in this respect. Given that these tools aren’t radically different people migrate to them more so than MM.

    5. Email management is becoming a big thing. Our company recently issued a policy that email can ONLY be stored in Outlook (which has a management program to delete messages after a certain period). MM will soon roll out to others who want it company-wide but the Outlook email import feature will be disabled. Severe loss of functionality for me and the program.

15. Posted May 23rd, 2005, 1:58 am by David Ford

    Hmm, very interesting. I have been using MindManager since version 3.5. I don’t need to be sold on the benefits, MindManager has become the central hub of my work environment.

    What surprises me is that the folk at MindJet can talk about wanting to reach ‘critical mass’, but seem blind to the largest inhibition to that - price. Actually, I suspect that MindJet are not blind at all and, that despite the statements in this thread, are committed to a low volume, high margin strategy. And, I might add, there is nothing wrong with that; it’s a perfectly legitimate strategy.

    Nevertheless, if MindJet really do want more volume, then they need to tackle the entry price issue. When I enter a company and start using MindManager, I expect others to take notice and express interest. And they do. They like the idea, they would like to use it, some even drool over it. At this stage they want to know about price, and let me tell you, that price usually stops them downloading the free trial. Why? Because even if they liked the product and wanted to continue with it, they know there is no way they can justify the cost to senior management.

    Whatever way you dice it, MindManager falls into the “better moustrap” category, as far as most managers are concerned. Those of us who use it, might argue that its a MUCH better moustrap - but the fact is, that it doesn’t create any new end outputs - just better ones. $350.00 is a reasonable price for ‘new’, half that for ‘better’. Only us hard core MindManager ‘addicts’, will pay the present price.

    So, MindJet, which way do you really want it?

16. Posted May 25th, 2005, 8:03 am by Geoff Thomas

    Tim,
    It is surprising to me, (and probably frustrating for Mindjet), that your customer base is only 500,000. I have used your product on and off since 3.5, but being a Mac user, have only used it regularly when forced into the Windows world due to corporate edict. When free again, I used my Mac and via Virtual PC, MindManager. But this was always a poor solution since VPC is very slow. Last year I started using Pyramid, http://www.mindcad.com/index.php, a Mindmapping tool made just for the Mac. You might sample it if you have a Mac in your company somewhere.

    Pyramid is an elegant mindmapping tool that is easy to learn and more importantly, to use. Your product, like too many software products is feature rich, but is much more than is absolutely necessary. And with all those features comes complexity and cost. I asked your company many times in the past when would you be releasing a Mac version and your answer has always been, “no plans”. I can now say, “don’t bother”, someone else has done the job and for $49.00 people to can afford to “play” with mind mapping. It’s too bad it is only available for Macs, where the innovators play.

17. Posted May 26th, 2005, 7:06 am by Bill Riski

    Tim,

    Interesting article. I’ve been using MindManager for about two years and really love it - some of my reasons are consistent with what others have said, some are not.

    To put my comments in context, I’m addressing use from a business perspective. I work for a well respected consulting firm; PC & Microsoft Office environment. I do a lot of systems engineering, brainstorming, systems architectures, technical writing – that kind of thing. Second, at home I’m a Mac addict; have been since 1979 (OK, Apple II back then).

    I tend to like applications that I can grow into; that offer features beyond what I need today, but will find indispensable tomorrow as I get more proficient. Kudos to MindManager for this.

    I love the integration with Microsoft Office products. Huge plus in my work environment. As a side note, I find the interaction with Project a bit too fragile for my tastes; too easy to break one side or the other as I go back and forth between the two.

    I like the flexibility in presentation versus content. In other words, I can make a mind map (content) as complex as I can stand, then via collapsing / expanding and use of icons / filters I can present/print/display the map as I need to at the moment (presentation).

    As for a Mac version, I disagree with some others. We still need MindManager native on a Mac. I’ve purchased and/or tried other mind mapping applications available for the Mac. None come close to the rich functionality of your product. And, as others have said, the virtual PC solution Mind Jet keeps pointing inquiries to from Mac heads is really unacceptable. You’ve already been beat up some on cost. Requiring a business user in a Mac environment to have to also purchase Virtual PC really nails the decision – no MindManager; as for performance of this band-aid… never mind. And at home …$$…you get the point.

    One last comment, I think you could do more around the thought (recently blogged by Dave Winer) of productivity tools versus creativity tools. Microsoft Office is undisputedly IMHO on the productivity side – and does this quite well. But MindManager is on the creativity side, and OBTW happens to nicely interact with the productivity Goliath called Microsoft Office Suite. Thought through, this really explains why I like your product so much. If only it were cross platform!

    Thanks for listening.

18. Posted May 29th, 2005, 1:53 pm by Tony Wang

    Offer it free to universities. University students will grow up on the software, go into the marketplace, and demand the businesses that they work at to purchase the software. If this is something that might interest you, I’d be willing to help.

19. Posted June 2nd, 2005, 7:17 am by Roger C. Parker

    I agree with Steve Newson: future growth depends on the availability of templates and examples.

    People buy solutions, not tools.

    Lotus 1-2-3 spurred the growth of the PC industry not because everyone wanted to insert text and graphics in cells, but because they wanted to try “if-then” scenarios with cash-flow projections.

    PageMaker spurred the growth of the Apple Macintosh not because there was pent up market desire to “merge text and graphics,” but because businesses of all sizes wanted to produce newsletters without paying the high costs of traditional typesetting and production.

    Consumers want simple, easy-to-visualize, “paint by numbers” solutions to specific problems.

    PS: This was a great question to ask!

20. Posted June 7th, 2005, 1:55 pm by Hobart Swan

    I have to say that in all the conversations I have with customers (and I have many), price has never been mentioned as a barrier to acceptance. Obviously I am dealing with people who have already seen the value of MindManager (being customers after all). But it interesting that no one has referred to price having been an issue…(
    The key issue for us remains, as my colleague Tim and others have pointed out, is getting MindManager in front of people. Thanks, Stephen for an interesting set of observations on this. I agree that even getting MindManager in front of people won’t be enough if they already have a method. (Some of the “creative” people I’ve spoken to seem to be more more invested in their methodology than regular business users. I suspect it’s a bit like athletes: Since, for example, writing a good story involves invoking various gods and goddesses of creativity, muses, etc., part of the writing process is propitiating those same entities via predictable ritual!)
    Mindjet as a company has come a long way from seeing itself as a technology company to one that, as Roger Parker says, provides solutions. A few years ago, we could count on early adopters to figure out what to do with MindManager. As we enter the mainstream, we need to give others a few clues as to what to do with all this power.

21. Posted August 18th, 2005, 7:56 am by Ric Rhodes

    I have reviewed/used most all mindmap products out there since inception, and the ‘for free’ versions were always limited in functionality, usability and many times very bug infested.

    Once I started using Mindjet’s Mindmanager, I was amazed how easy it was to export to all MS office applications. This is definitely one of the most attractive features/functionality of Mindmanager and should definitely be emphasized. It would not suprise me if Microsoft acquired Mindjet in the future and would be a great enhancement for them to combine this with Visio.

    To get EVERYONE is not realistic, but do believe the User base will increase dramatically over time expecially when a MULTI-USER CAPABILITIES is delivered.

    Ric

22. Posted September 28th, 2005, 7:00 pm by Ron Brown

    I have been using Mindjet’s Mindmanager for years. It is my tool of choice for analyzing problems, capturing ideas and foremost as an alternative to powerpoint presentations. I can usually communicate for more information in far less time with far less trees destroyed.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.