I have personal experience working on both the software and marketing site for the software product like this.
In particular, we had a very high-touch sales process that started with cold-calling or references. The marketing website was more likely to act as an aid to a cold call than as Google traffic.
Second, it was a more abstract product with a custom implementation that had to pull data from whatever pre-existing software they were using.
Also, it was a very young product that was constantly evolving with ad-hoc deals and pricing. Some would buy the software package outright with full integration, demanding high-touch support and training. Others were willing to go with our “development partner” package, with a 50% discount off any custom implementation - but we also retained the ability to decline those customizations if they didn’t fit with our vision.
Also, the product was so abstract, it was very rare that its potential would be understood without a conversation.
Finally, often the person “tasked” with buying the software was not actually the holder of the purse strings. They usually needed a boss or other stakeholder to sign off and write the check. So it wasn’t really advantageous to discuss the price and sticker-shock that the lower level employee might experience, vs the business owner who was more used to making those types of purchases. Really, we needed to turn the person who was doing the inquiry into an advocate for our product within their organization. If they could advocate the value of our product to the check writer in an effective manner, it reduced the friction for us to come in and tell the check writer the price of the solution. Then we let them make the judgement call.
Another part of this is that since the sales process was very high touch, and since we were so small. There was a serious opportunity cost to incur if our sales guy was wasting his time creating materials for a particular customer who wasn’t going to buy. So we would quickly qualify the customer by getting them to pay a non-trivial amount of money to RESEARCH the implementation. If they paid that qualifying cost, we would ask for information on all of the software systems they had in place, along with database schema information. Then we would pour over it to determine what we could do with that data, if it would be a successful implementation, and if there was any data missing that we’d need to collect. Either from a UI or through a bulk dump from some obscure archive. That was definitely not worth the opportunity cost of a barely interested customer.
Overall, I think we were trying to be honest and fair. Not trying to price gouge or anything, but it was a very complicated product, and it was a complicated sale.
Now being a technically minded business owner, I have been on the other end of this and found it to be extremely annoying. But it is not too often that whatever product I am looking at is being researched directly by a business owner with check-writing ability, and one who is also coming from a technical background. So while it annoys me, I get why the company/product is choosing to do that.