GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211041419


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer fromAncestorsMagazine
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 13:23:39 -0300
References: <756577.67814.qm@web38803.mail.mud.yahoo.com><7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.19.142$.8C66D00E99B3486E8E26FA265A05CA4E@PeterAKincaiPC><ea3bd9560805170825r7c246f01n490b13dd6d4565e2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9560805170825r7c246f01n490b13dd6d4565e2@mail.gmail.com>


What you say here points cuts to the heart of the
article. As a project researcher, or as a business
venturer, you can see the value of getting as many
people on board as you can. You know that
many will not pay more that $99 for the test; you
know that testing companies can't make money
on high resolution tests at this price; and you know that
they, or someone else, will someday need to upgrade
from 12 markers to get any real genealogical benefit
from the testing. This is in effect a little con of the
masses.

This is a classic case of the ends justifying the means.
Sure it may be a common approach but it doesn't make
it right. If someone who is well versed in the field sees some value
to 12 marker tests they can go ahead and get 12 marker
or even 1 marker tests. However, trying to entice people
who don't know anything about this technology to fork
over $99 for a 12 marker test that tells them little is
somewhat low. Everyone in the know, knows that this is
not what they signed up for.

Peter




----- Original Message -----
From: "David Faux" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer
fromAncestorsMagazine


>I have business / marketing experience and I can say without hesitation
>that
> FTDNA is very astute in this capacity. If they marketed an entry level
> product at over the "magic" figure of $99 they would lose a lot of people
> who have a passing interest. When these people see their results most
> realize that they need to upgrade and depending on budget and other
> factors
> will go for 37 or 67 markers. When the competition is offering 10 markers
> (OA) then this must be factored into the decision as to what smoresbord of
> products to offer. Everything they do must be keyed in to the Genographic
> Project and once these people transfer to FTDNA many or most will
> upgrade -
> but the 12 markers enticed them, whereas the extra cost for the 25 markers
> can frequently not be justified. The person new to the field does not
> know
> the difference between 12 and 25 only that one costs less. The raw fact
> is
> that FTDNA would lose a lot of potential customers by following your
> recommendations. Furthermore I paid for many of my Shetlanders because 12
> markers was affordable. Many of these were later upgraded if they proved
> interesting.
>
> As to haplogroup testing, this is imperative as far as I am concerned.
> Unless there is a surname and a paper trail then the best way to rule out
> a
> convergent match is via haplogroup testing. If both are R1b1b2h
> (relatively
> rare) then this would seal the deal in most cases. Then you get the bonus
> of anthropological information which can take you down a whole new
> interesting path.
>
> David K. Faux.
>
>
> On 5/17/08, Peter A. Kincaid <> wrote:
>>
>> Why would you need to upgrade if there was
>> value in the 12 marker results? If there were
>> no 12 marker tests offered by FTDNA then
>> 25 would be the entry level test and prices
>> would have to be adjusted accordingly. The
>> only real value of the 12 marker test for FTDNA
>> is for them to keep this as the base price/value
>> making one have to pay more for the tests of
>> real value. Anyone with business/marketing
>> experience will understand this point.
>>
>> Peter

This thread: