Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Comments
by Copper Elite Contributor
‎10-02-2019 03:39 AM - edited ‎10-10-2019 02:16 AM

I totally agree - adding Contact details to the task list or filtering Activity lists based on Date and Time should be a basic funcion - I've asked Act repeately but have got nowhere.    

The inability to produce Activity Reports for service engineers, delivery drivers and sales staff has cost Act countlees new customers. Currently Activity reports are based on people names and not the date  / time of Activity - extremely unhelpfull.  - As this is public I' ve removed Company , phone and addresses from image below - you can clearly see Act report and Calendar dont work logicaly. 

 

 

  Act Calendar and Activity Reports USELESS based on NAMES should be based on DATES  and TIMES.JPG

by Nickel Super Contributor
on ‎10-17-2019 10:22 AM

You can have multiple contacts on a task.  When that happens, which field should show?

 

 

The report in the comment is sorted by last name as noted.  The Activity report is a contact-based report, and not a calendar-based report.  Have you tried using the 'other' report function and selecting the Task List report?  I'm not sure if that fulfills your needs appropriately, but they appear to have more detailed task information.

by
on ‎10-22-2019 01:32 AM

What we have been asking for is that the TASK LIST can have any field from the Contact fields added into it.

 

This then allows for a very simple export via excel of the selected fields and instantly becomes a loading sheet for staff. So simple to do and opens up a whole range of possibilities and of course new users of ACT.

 

I sometimes wonder if the managers of the design team understand their customer base or the potential customer base in the CRM world.

by Bronze Elite Contributor
on ‎10-31-2019 10:42 PM

Impact Suite or the separated module Impact Calendars would take care of this perfectly.

impactact.com 

by
‎11-23-2019 02:37 AM - edited ‎11-26-2019 04:59 AM

Hi 

 

Firstly thanks you for your comment and yes they would but my clients are reluctant to spend again on a feature they expect to be in the product. It is also interesting that the perceived problem mentioned by B Clarke is not a problem for the add-on people and of course you already have some linked fields in the Task List.

 

Sorry to report that this has not been addressed in version 22 release. It seems most of Swiftpages efforts are developing the marketing part of ACT and this is not surprising given their background but they must also keep up with other CRM features from rival products and this is now a fairly standard feature offered by competitors. 

by Bronze Elite Contributor
on ‎11-23-2019 05:00 AM

This sort of functionality, and more have been typically addressed by Act! addon products.  If enough users make a need known, usually it's an addon vendor that steps up to deliver.  That client then chooses whether or not their need is worth the price of that addon.    

 

In the specific requirements of this case, the functionality is available now and has been for years.  Many people have bought Task List Plus over the past 10 years and we have had great success with the new Impact Suite (complete feature set) and Impact Activities (specific feature set) at $125 and $100 /yr respectively.  In fact, many of our customers tell us Impact delivers their most important features.

by
on ‎11-26-2019 03:29 AM

Hi and again I also endorse the functionality that add-ons bring to ACT. The point is what should be included in the product and what should only be gained by buying an add-on.

 

The success of Task List Plus and Impact Suite that both bring this functionality to ACT at an extra cost rather make my point for me. If this feature is that popular as an add-on why have Swiftpage not made it a part of the product as there is an obvious need?  

by Bronze Elite Contributor
on ‎11-26-2019 03:49 AM

What Act's owners invest into their own product is a decision for them.

What users invest in their own solution is likewise.

 

An addon/value-add/accessory market exists with virtually everything.  Ford doesn't make tires.  Should they?

 

Our longtime Impact users still rave about how much more they can do with Act.  The improvements in Version 10 are the best ever, so for them a reasonable $125/year is an easy part of their commitment to better results.  Many also invest in professional services and training since that goes hand in hand, and as a consultant it's very satisfying delivering real value.

by
‎11-26-2019 04:49 AM - edited ‎11-26-2019 04:51 AM

Thank you so much for making my point again.

 

Ford don't make tyres but they do sell their cars with tyres attached as the cars would not be of much use without them.

 

Of course swiftpage has the choice to ignore their client base and let clients chose to pay extra for add-ons. The problem occurs when the client base decides that alternative products with the features inbuilt make a better ROI for them.

 

I have no disagreement with the  benefit of purchasing the add-ons and have sold them to my client base. It is just what should be included as part of the product and what should have to be paid as an extra. It is a debate that we could continue for a long time so by all means reply again but I am closing the debate from my end. Nothing personal, I can just see this going round in circles so am going to move on and use my time to support other act users on this forum as I see you also make a valuable contributions to as well. Good luck, Chip.

Labels