GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211047707
From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer fromAncestorsMagazine
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 11:08:27 -0700
References: <7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.19.142$.8C66D00E99B3486E8E26FA265A05CA4E@PeterAKincaiPC><382357.60409.qm@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <382357.60409.qm@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
As the former business/marketing manager of EthnoAncestry I can say with
some authority that FTDNA is absolutely adopting the most correct approach
with all variables consisered. Don't forget that with 12 markers FTDNA
provides a guaranteed haplogroup assignment (a very good deal, except for
those who are halogroup phobic), and in addition, it allows immediate entry
into Dr. Hammer's extensive world-wide database for comparison purposes. I
have no idea why you are both saying or implying that FTDNA is in some sort
of shoddy way trying to dupe the consumer. That is absolutely not the
case. I can report this a former competitor. They have consistently acted
in a way that was in the best interests of the consumer but of course they
cannot please everyone. One of you is a big supported of RG and will take
any opportunity to take a pot shot at FTDNA. They are spot on in what they
are doing. I know that. Most everyone else knows that. So why not end of
story.
David K. Faux.
On 5/17/08, Robert Stafford <> wrote:
>
> I agree. The irrationality of consumers is a well-known phenomenon.
>
> Bob Stafford
>
> "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:
| Re: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer fromAncestorsMagazine by "David Faux" <> |