EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
They have a perceived problem because they do not want to invest anything PERIOD. They will never be happy with the investment regardless of the benefit the society receives. Thus, their problem is moot.


They don't want to invest...anything? Period? Really? You have data to back that up or are we making an anecdotal leap?


A percentage, no, but that is the same data you have on the subject.

Quote:
Quote:
I did not change it, just pointed out the use of a big if in relation to my little ifs. :razz:


Alight then, add +/- 1% around 95 to account for misunderstandings, mistakes, etc. Would you or would you not be happy with that level of service?


You are still trying to compare apples ot oranges. Where did you get the 95 % figure? See the question you asked above about data. :-

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, I surely would not offer an otherwise stellar track record as consolation if the altnernative were to simply adjust a process and potentially piss off existing satisfied customers.


Then you have too little experience with a variety of customers or a poor business model.


:lol: Hardly!


If you still believe the customer is always right, that belies that position. Unless you are just giving the saying lip service and actually progessing when the customer is wrong.[/quote]

Quote:
You do realize that the phrase refers to a customer base determining demand, not an individual person stating that a hot dog vendor sells tacos when they clearly do not, right? I hope so.


No, that may be what you have tried to redefine it to be, but even the customer base is not going to always be correct.

Quote:
Quote:
No, but when special modifications are known to happen the first time one cannot be made will enlist a very unhappy customer because the other guy got what he wanted. This is from 40 years of sales experience in several different industries.


Just to make this easier for me, how many dissatisfied customers are we talking here? The concept of a fix for some that just pisses off others is alien to me.


Have you never encountered a customer who wanted a special accommodation you could not provide? Can you not see how some of those customers would not understand why their accomodation could not be made while another's could be? All it takes is a passing remark from one to another.

Quote:
I find it odd even discussing it and question the robustness of the value stream in question.


http://reallifespirituality.com/custome ... e-demands/

http://www.businessknowledgesource.com/ ... 00930.html


Quote:
Quote:
But soceity is not making any complaints those few who do not want to help are.


Ahh, you think the only ones with the problem are the ones making it known that they have a problem. Of course.


You have data showing those who have a problem and to what extent?

Quote:
Quote:
You either deal with very simple items or have very special customers. Most only have a minimal idea of what they need and want the impossible.


More complex than power hand tools and less complex than a car...is that complex enough?


Sounds like it could be fairly simple, but that may not be the case.

Quote:
I don't know exactly what you mean by "special" customers. Do dealer/distributors count?


Evidently not.

Quote:
At any rate, they not only know what they want, but know very well what is needed when the end customer doesn't have a clue.


So you are insulated from the real customers for the most part.

Quote:
Basically, the only end customer concern is whether or not the product functions as intended. Expectations are defined and understood from start to finish.


Not if you are dealing with people. There is always a percentage of misunderstanding.

Quote:
Quote:
Knowing they want something is a far cry from knowing what they want. You can tell them what they need, but that still does not mean they will know what they want as much as they will know what they will accept.


Technically, they don't need to know what they want. That's ultimately up to you to figure out and come up with the business model to provide it.


Yes, they do. Unless there is a regulatory requirement the customer would have to have some idea of the need before they approached anyone.

Quote:
What they accept is important and translates into minimally met expectations. But we're not concerned with that as much as we are exceeding them. Again, we have to figure that out ourselves.


If they do not know what they need, how do they know the needs were met much less exceeded?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes I am. You are confusing the vocal fringe with being the society, which is incorrect.


You're confusing a non-vocal component for those who are satisfied, which is incorrect. The voting booth speaks the loudest.


Where has there been a popular vote on any of the entitlements?

Quote:
Quote:
The customer may not want abuse, but unless they are willing to pay for it they will have to accept a level of abuse.


Anyone doing anything about it? Is it working? You do realize that the ideal is for entitlements/benefits to trend downward, right?


Why exactly would that be the ideal? Unless there are fewer retirees or the retirees are living on less income that would not be the ideal case at all. The same for the disabled people. How do we reduce their numbers?

Quote:
Is that happening?


I hope not.

Quote:
Quote:
Again you are saying ALL of them have a problem when that is not the case.


Not really. I'm saying more than a vocal, fringe minority has a problem with it.


If it is not all nor a fringe just how many is it who have a problem and how big is the problem? I expect the majority has little problem once they have the data.

Quote:
Quote:
That is an opinion and there are other opinions which disagree with that view.


True, but it doesn't make them any less wrong. :razz:


I know your stated opinion is about as wrong as it can be .... :razz: :mrgreen:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But their actions--what they buy--are the final say, no?


No, they are the final say for them once the seller has given the best deal they believe is profitable for them. If they say no, there should be another customer who will say yes to the same deal.


Customer base...


Same thing applies, which is why some products fail the first release and succeed only after they charge more for them in the second release.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:07 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Been busy. Haven't forgot about the thread. Be back soon.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:06 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
No problem, have had some excitements myself.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:24 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
They don't want to invest...anything? Period? Really? You have data to back that up or are we making an anecdotal leap?


A percentage, no, but that is the same data you have on the subject.


You don't think the simpler explanation might be more accurate--that they do want to invest but do not believe they are getting their money's worth? It's easy to jerk a knee and claim that they just don't want to spend anything. In a sense, you could even be correct given what they're getting. This is not necessarily indication that they'd otherwise invest nothing.

Quote:
Quote:
Alight then, add +/- 1% around 95 to account for misunderstandings, mistakes, etc. Would you or would you not be happy with that level of service?


You are still trying to compare apples ot oranges. Where did you get the 95 % figure? See the question you asked above about data. :-


No, I'm simply trying to get a straight answer out of you given a simple hypothetical. Don't worry about it. I understand. :problem:

Quote:
If you still believe the customer is always right, that belies that position. Unless you are just giving the saying lip service and actually progessing when the customer is wrong.


Don’t really know how to go further here other than to offer that, to me, the “customer” is an entity, not any specific individual. I’m thinking customer base and you’re thinking of a single person. A single person doesn’t define my business. The base is never wrong. If I don’t satisfy them, I don’t have a business. Ergo, the customer is always right.

Quote:
Quote:
You do realize that the phrase refers to a customer base determining demand, not an individual person stating that a hot dog vendor sells tacos when they clearly do not, right? I hope so.


No, that may be what you have tried to redefine it to be, but even the customer base is not going to always be correct.


You should expand your horizons beyond dictionary definition. Don’t make the same mistake that AR proponent do when they cite Webster’s, all the while never having cracked a biology text.

Quote:
Quote:
Just to make this easier for me, how many dissatisfied customers are we talking here? The concept of a fix for some that just pisses off others is alien to me.


Have you never encountered a customer who wanted a special accommodation you could not provide? Can you not see how some of those customers would not understand why their accomodation could not be made while another's could be? All it takes is a passing remark from one to another.


I’ll say this—I’ve never encountered a business that survived by not accommodating the demands of their customer base. Furthermore, even an individual asking for something you don’t offer may well make them unreasonable, as you allude, yet it doesn’t make them wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
Ahh, you think the only ones with the problem are the ones making it known that they have a problem. Of course.


You have data showing those who have a problem and to what extent?


“Those few…” How many is few? Do you have data? Sounded to me like we were talking anecdotally. Are we when you make the statement but suddenly aren’t when it is challenged? If you really think those with a problem are the one’s vocalizing it, you go man!

Quote:
Quote:
At any rate, they not only know what they want, but know very well what is needed when the end customer doesn't have a clue.


So you are insulated from the real customers for the most part.


Clue me in—what’s a real customer as opposed to an unreal one?

Quote:
Quote:
Basically, the only end customer concern is whether or not the product functions as intended. Expectations are defined and understood from start to finish.


Not if you are dealing with people. There is always a percentage of misunderstanding.


Only if I have failed at some point in communicating.

Quote:
Quote:
Technically, they don't need to know what they want. That's ultimately up to you to figure out and come up with the business model to provide it.


Yes, they do. Unless there is a regulatory requirement the customer would have to have some idea of the need before they approached anyone.


It’s your job to communicate to customers what is provided when they approach you. If they mistake you for someone else, is that what you mean by the customer being wrong?

Quote:
Quote:
What they accept is important and translates into minimally met expectations. But we're not concerned with that as much as we are exceeding them. Again, we have to figure that out ourselves.


If they do not know what they need, how do they know the needs were met much less exceeded?


Are they delighted, happy, or just content? It may take a few iterations for them to comfortably know.

Quote:
Quote:
You're confusing a non-vocal component for those who are satisfied, which is incorrect. The voting booth speaks the loudest.


Where has there been a popular vote on any of the entitlements?


None directly. It boils down to how many candidates there are who, if elected, would work toward changing whatever status quo there was. All I was saying is that folks will vote the way they will whether or not they are complaining.

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone doing anything about it? Is it working? You do realize that the ideal is for entitlements/benefits to trend downward, right?


Why exactly would that be the ideal?


If you’re building more dependency, you’re doing something wrong. That’s why.

Quote:
Unless there are fewer retirees or the retirees are living on less income that would not be the ideal case at all. The same for the disabled people. How do we reduce their numbers?


You don’t necessarily reduce their numbers. Build independency. I don’t need to know how to do that to know that it’s the right thing to do.

Quote:
Quote:
Is that happening?


I hope not.


You want more dependency?

Quote:
Quote:
Not really. I'm saying more than a vocal, fringe minority has a problem with it.


If it is not all nor a fringe just how many is it who have a problem and how big is the problem? I expect the majority has little problem once they have the data.


You expect such because you yourself don’t have a problem with it. I have a problem despite the data, and I expect the majority would be the same. Entitlements aren’t the only reason for disapproval.

Quote:
Quote:
Customer base...


Same thing applies, which is why some products fail the first release and succeed only after they charge more for them in the second release.


Sounds like the one that had to change is the one that was wrong.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
They don't want to invest...anything? Period? Really? You have data to back that up or are we making an anecdotal leap?


A percentage, no, but that is the same data you have on the subject.


You don't think the simpler explanation might be more accurate--that they do want to invest but do not believe they are getting their money's worth?


That is not what their message is though. Most seem to revert back to no taxes or at least no federal taxes quite often.

Quote:
It's easy to jerk a knee and claim that they just don't want to spend anything.


That would be the general result if the federal taxes were eliminated.

Quote:
In a sense, you could even be correct given what they're getting. This is not necessarily indication that they'd otherwise invest nothing.


I can only go by what they say.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Alight then, add +/- 1% around 95 to account for misunderstandings, mistakes, etc. Would you or would you not be happy with that level of service?


You are still trying to compare apples ot oranges. Where did you get the 95 % figure? See the question you asked above about data. :-


No, I'm simply trying to get a straight answer out of you given a simple hypothetical. Don't worry about it. I understand. :problem:


A simple hypothetical that will be used to determine what? Nothing relating to the discussion as the percentage can only be pulled from the air.

Quote:
Quote:
If you still believe the customer is always right, that belies that position. Unless you are just giving the saying lip service and actually progessing when the customer is wrong.


Don’t really know how to go further here other than to offer that, to me, the “customer” is an entity, not any specific individual. I’m thinking customer base and you’re thinking of a single person. A single person doesn’t define my business. The base is never wrong. If I don’t satisfy them, I don’t have a business. Ergo, the customer is always right.


The customer base may keep you in business and still be wrong. Look at all of the customers who demanded the benefits of Thalidomide gave in fighting morning sickness and yet they were all wrong in the end.

The customers wanting to keep their cheap energy sources at the cost of climate change will keep the coal and oil industry in profits, but may not be good for the species as a whole.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You do realize that the phrase refers to a customer base determining demand, not an individual person stating that a hot dog vendor sells tacos when they clearly do not, right? I hope so.


No, that may be what you have tried to redefine it to be, but even the customer base is not going to always be correct.


You should expand your horizons beyond dictionary definition.


Why would anyone seek to add redefinition of terms into a discussion and expect the discussion to be fruitful? Of course, one could redefine fruitful as "complete failure" and still be happy.

Quote:
Don’t make the same mistake that AR proponent do when they cite Webster’s, all the while never having cracked a biology text.


You mean using a common definition rather than a scientific one in a discussion of science?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just to make this easier for me, how many dissatisfied customers are we talking here? The concept of a fix for some that just pisses off others is alien to me.


Have you never encountered a customer who wanted a special accommodation you could not provide? Can you not see how some of those customers would not understand why their accomodation could not be made while another's could be? All it takes is a passing remark from one to another.


I’ll say this—I’ve never encountered a business that survived by not accommodating the demands of their customer base. Furthermore, even an individual asking for something you don’t offer may well make them unreasonable, as you allude, yet it doesn’t make them wrong.


Ahhh ... going into a men's clothing store and demanding to be sold a set of snow tires would not make me wrong? It would clearly not make me right, which leaves another redfintion as far as I can see.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ahh, you think the only ones with the problem are the ones making it known that they have a problem. Of course.


You have data showing those who have a problem and to what extent?


“Those few…” How many is few?


A small number. If we had actual data for those divisions we would use them.

Quote:
Do you have data? Sounded to me like we were talking anecdotally.


No, the various researches into publication of complaint indicate the majority do not give input. This would be different for the different functions, but the majority is less vocal. that is why there was the old reference to the "Silent Majority" in politics.

Quote:
Are we when you make the statement but suddenly aren’t when it is challenged? If you really think those with a problem are the one’s vocalizing it, you go man!


Those are the only ones which can be counted either way. The ones vocalizing the problem can be considered as having a problem. The rest are unknowns, but will not be solely on either side and more liekly will show a bell curve if actually determined.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At any rate, they not only know what they want, but know very well what is needed when the end customer doesn't have a clue.


So you are insulated from the real customers for the most part.


Clue me in—what’s a real customer as opposed to an unreal one?


A real customer is one that purchases, but is not an agent for sale or resale for the supplier as are dealers, distributors, and franchisees.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Basically, the only end customer concern is whether or not the product functions as intended. Expectations are defined and understood from start to finish.


Not if you are dealing with people. There is always a percentage of misunderstanding.


Only if I have failed at some point in communicating.


So you are the only failure in understanding? That is a big responsibility. The fact is too many people do not listen completely and fill in the gaps with assumptions. That is why attornies make so much money litigating contracts even when the contracts are heavily negotiated and written to try to cover all aspects .... until one side redefines the contract.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Technically, they don't need to know what they want. That's ultimately up to you to figure out and come up with the business model to provide it.


Yes, they do. Unless there is a regulatory requirement the customer would have to have some idea of the need before they approached anyone.


It’s your job to communicate to customers what is provided when they approach you.


Why would they approach you if they do not know what they want? Unless they know they want what you provide they would be at the men's clothing store at the mall demanding they sell them something they need but do not know what it is. :mrgreen:

Quote:
If they mistake you for someone else, is that what you mean by the customer being wrong?


No, they can be wrong in many, many more ways.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What they accept is important and translates into minimally met expectations. But we're not concerned with that as much as we are exceeding them. Again, we have to figure that out ourselves.


If they do not know what they need, how do they know the needs were met much less exceeded?


Are they delighted, happy, or just content?


Why would they be any of the things since they are spending money on something they do not know is what they need because they do not know what it is they need.

Quote:
It may take a few iterations for them to comfortably know.


If they ever know.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're confusing a non-vocal component for those who are satisfied, which is incorrect. The voting booth speaks the loudest.


Where has there been a popular vote on any of the entitlements?


None directly. It boils down to how many candidates there are who, if elected, would work toward changing whatever status quo there was. All I was saying is that folks will vote the way they will whether or not they are complaining.


That is why there are so many popularity issues in elections? The common voter cannot generally teel how a politician will act one he is elected because the strings attached to campaign contributions have a bigger impact in most cases.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyone doing anything about it? Is it working? You do realize that the ideal is for entitlements/benefits to trend downward, right?


Why exactly would that be the ideal?


If you’re building more dependency, you’re doing something wrong. That’s why.


Unless the population is growing and then the trend shold also track higher if the level was going to approach the same as before the population increase.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless there are fewer retirees or the retirees are living on less income that would not be the ideal case at all. The same for the disabled people. How do we reduce their numbers?


You don’t necessarily reduce their numbers. Build independency. I don’t need to know how to do that to know that it’s the right thing to do.


If you do not know how to do it how can you be sure it is the right thing to do?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is that happening?


I hope not.


You want more dependency?


I just do not want to cut programs on the assumptions which seem to be rampant.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not really. I'm saying more than a vocal, fringe minority has a problem with it.


If it is not all nor a fringe just how many is it who have a problem and how big is the problem? I expect the majority has little problem once they have the data.


You expect such because you yourself don’t have a problem with it.


No, I expect as such because the data indicates the problems are not what is being claimed they are.

Quote:
I have a problem despite the data, and I expect the majority would be the same.


That is a scary thought .... forget the facts just have a problem?

Quote:
Entitlements aren’t the only reason for disapproval.


It is the point of discussion though/

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Customer base...


Same thing applies, which is why some products fail the first release and succeed only after they charge more for them in the second release.


Sounds like the one that had to change is the one that was wrong.


There was no change made other than the selling price. The customers wanted to pay more
than the supplier offered initially. The customers were not wrong to want to overpay, I am sure.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:30 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I can only go by what they say.


As opposed to what they do? That is, pay taxes. If they pay for something they don’t want, what leads you to believe that they’d pay nothing for something they do? What you’re suggesting doesn’t make any sense or, in fact, you’re drawing conclusions based on anecdotal data—what they say. Tsk tsk.

Quote:
The customer base may keep you in business and still be wrong. Look at all of the customers who demanded the benefits of Thalidomide gave in fighting morning sickness and yet they were all wrong in the end.

The customers wanting to keep their cheap energy sources at the cost of climate change will keep the coal and oil industry in profits, but may not be good for the species as a whole.


Depends on what you accept as “good”. Unless we’re talking extinction level events, a massive die off could very well be great for the species. Might mean crap for our way of life but then, that’s what you’re suggesting is “bad” at the same time.

[quot]
Quote:
Don’t make the same mistake that AR proponent do when they cite Webster’s, all the while never having cracked a biology text.


You mean using a common definition rather than a scientific one in a discussion of science? [/quote][/quote]

Indeed, only in this case it would be a common definition as opposed to a business definition in a discussion of business.

Quote:
Ahhh ... going into a men's clothing store and demanding to be sold a set of snow tires would not make me wrong?


Depends. Is it Costco? No seriously, wrong about what, exactly?

Quote:
No, the various researches into publication of complaint indicate the majority do not give input. This would be different for the different functions, but the majority is less vocal. that is why there was the old reference to the "Silent Majority" in politics.


The sample sizes we do have are more than sufficient to draw reasonable conclusions on the population.

Quote:
Those are the only ones which can be counted either way. The ones vocalizing the problem can be considered as having a problem. The rest are unknowns, but will not be solely on either side and more liekly will show a bell curve if actually determined.


Yes and no. Non-vocals can most certainly be counted one way or the other. The curve can be modeled without having input from every single subject.

Quote:
A real customer is one that purchases, but is not an agent for sale or resale for the supplier as are dealers, distributors, and franchisees.


Why, dealers and distributors make purchases. What you’re saying is patently false. A customer is any one or entity downwind from you or your operation in the value stream. Generally, the closer they are, the MORE impact they have on your business.

Quote:
So you are the only failure in understanding? That is a big responsibility. The fact is too many people do not listen completely and fill in the gaps with assumptions. That is why attornies make so much money litigating contracts even when the contracts are heavily negotiated and written to try to cover all aspects .... until one side redefines the contract.


That may very well be the facts, but yes, meeting and exceeding expectations is a big responsibility. My customers expect me to understand them, to know them, with little input at all, if any.

Quote:
Why would they approach you if they do not know what they want? Unless they know they want what you provide they would be at the men's clothing store at the mall demanding they sell them something they need but do not know what it is. :mrgreen:


“Unless they know what they want…”

“…but do not know what it is.”

Do they or don’t they?

Quote:
No, they can be wrong in many, many more ways.


Business-wise, which is what we’re talking here or perhaps, on how long to cook a pizza?

Quote:
Why would they be any of the things since they are spending money on something they do not know is what they need because they do not know what it is they need.


Why would they be happy? Easy. Because you as a provider have made them that way by convincing them that you have what they want.


Quote:
Unless the population is growing and then the trend shold also track higher if the level was going to approach the same as before the population increase.


Population isn’t the only lending factor.

Quote:
If you do not know how to do it how can you be sure it is the right thing to do?


Ever seen someone try to drive with a flat as opposed to pulling over and changing it?

Quote:
I just do not want to cut programs on the assumptions which seem to be rampant.


Then cut them on general principle. You don’t have to provide the general welfare in order to promote it.

Quote:
No, I expect as such because the data indicates the problems are not what is being claimed they are.


Read between the lines. Folks aren’t happy with their investment.

Quote:
That is a scary thought .... forget the facts just have a problem?


One needn’t forget the facts in order to take issue.

Quote:
It is the point of discussion though/


Entitlements are but a fraction of government waste.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Customer base...


Same thing applies, which is why some products fail the first release and succeed only after they charge more for them in the second release.


Sounds like the one that had to change is the one that was wrong.


Quote:
There was no change made other than the selling price.


Change nonetheless. Can I get any hope with that?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I can only go by what they say.


As opposed to what they do? That is, pay taxes. If they pay for something they don’t want, what leads you to believe that they’d pay nothing for something they do?


Unless they say they would do so, there is no basis to draw such a conclusion.

Quote:
What you’re suggesting doesn’t make any sense or, in fact, you’re drawing conclusions based on anecdotal data—what they say. Tsk tsk.


As opposed to making a pure assumption? I am basing it on the data available. If you have other data I would be happy to review it, but your assumptions for others are not supported by statements made by various groups.

Quote:
Quote:
The customer base may keep you in business and still be wrong. Look at all of the customers who demanded the benefits of Thalidomide gave in fighting morning sickness and yet they were all wrong in the end.

The customers wanting to keep their cheap energy sources at the cost of climate change will keep the coal and oil industry in profits, but may not be good for the species as a whole.


Depends on what you accept as “good”.


Promoting the survival of the species is good. Promoting the health and well being of the majority of the species is good.

Quote:
Unless we’re talking extinction level events, a massive die off could very well be great for the species. Might mean crap for our way of life but then, that’s what you’re suggesting is “bad” at the same time.


Yes, and a gamble of that magnitude is not one I would want to make, would you?

Quote:
[quot]
Quote:
Don’t make the same mistake that AR proponent do when they cite Webster’s, all the while never having cracked a biology text.


You mean using a common definition rather than a scientific one in a discussion of science?
[/quote]

Indeed, only in this case it would be a common definition as opposed to a business definition in a discussion of business.[/quote]

Where is the "business" dictionary with the different definitions from the common for the terms?

Quote:
Quote:
Ahhh ... going into a men's clothing store and demanding to be sold a set of snow tires would not make me wrong?


Depends. Is it Costco? No seriously, wrong about what, exactly?


Wrong about wanting tires from a clothier, since a customer doing so should not be wrong in this discussion tract.

Quote:
Quote:
No, the various researches into publication of complaint indicate the majority do not give input. This would be different for the different functions, but the majority is less vocal. that is why there was the old reference to the "Silent Majority" in politics.


The sample sizes we do have are more than sufficient to draw reasonable conclusions on the population.


Really? What exactly is the sample size and what statistical evidence do you have to support it being representative of the population in general?

Quote:
Yes and no. Non-vocals can most certainly be counted one way or the other.


Yes, but knowing which way could not be determined without additional data.

Quote:
The curve can be modeled without having input from every single subject.


True, but the input has to be from a representative section of the population and generally has some level of documentation to support that use.


Quote:
Quote:
A real customer is one that purchases, but is not an agent for sale or resale for the supplier as are dealers, distributors, and franchisees.


Why, dealers and distributors make purchases.


Not for use, but for resale to an end user.

Quote:
What you’re saying is patently false.


In your opinion, perhaps, but not in reality. If one does not USE the product but merely makes a profit on it due to contractual allowances how does one consume?

Quote:
A customer is any one or entity downwind from you or your operation in the value stream. Generally, the closer they are, the MORE impact they have on your business.


Not according to this business dictionary:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... tomer.html

customer

Definitions (2)

1. General: A party that receives or consumes products (goods or services) and has the ability to choose between different products and suppliers. See also buyer.



Quote:
Quote:
So you are the only failure in understanding? That is a big responsibility. The fact is too many people do not listen completely and fill in the gaps with assumptions. That is why attornies make so much money litigating contracts even when the contracts are heavily negotiated and written to try to cover all aspects .... until one side redefines the contract.


That may very well be the facts, but yes, meeting and exceeding expectations is a big responsibility. My customers expect me to understand them, to know them, with little input at all, if any.


That is an anecdotal reference for a generalization?

Quote:
Quote:
Why would they approach you if they do not know what they want? Unless they know they want what you provide they would be at the men's clothing store at the mall demanding they sell them something they need but do not know what it is. :mrgreen:


“Unless they know what they want…”

“…but do not know what it is.”

Do they or don’t they?


Since you have lost the ability to use context I will break it down.

Why would they approach you if they do not know what they want? (answer this)

If they DO know what they want and go to someone who sells such an item the premise they do not know what they need is false.

If they do not know what they need they will go to others demanding to be sold something, but none will know what that something may be.


Quote:
Quote:
No, they can be wrong in many, many more ways.


Business-wise, which is what we’re talking here or perhaps, on how long to cook a pizza?


Business wise, which woulod be the same as how long to cook a pizza if the business was pizzas.

Quote:
Quote:
Why would they be any of the things since they are spending money on something they do not know is what they need because they do not know what it is they need.


Why would they be happy? Easy. Because you as a provider have made them that way by convincing them that you have what they want.


Even if it is not what they need? Is that not the point of being wrong? You can convince them they want a aspirin and make them happy when you sell it to them, but if they needed a chemotherapy drug they will be very unhappy when they find out.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless the population is growing and then the trend shold also track higher if the level was going to approach the same as before the population increase.


Population isn’t the only lending factor.


I assume that was supposed to be leading factor, and that is why the trend would need to track higher than the population increase would add.

Quote:
Quote:
If you do not know how to do it how can you be sure it is the right thing to do?


Ever seen someone try to drive with a flat as opposed to pulling over and changing it?


Like on a mountain road where there is insufficient shoulders and heavy traffic? How about someone driving with run flat tires?

Quote:
Quote:
I just do not want to cut programs on the assumptions which seem to be rampant.


Then cut them on general principle.


I dislike ignorance as a general principle for such a decision.

Quote:
You don’t have to provide the general welfare in order to promote it.


In some cases you do.

Quote:
Quote:
No, I expect as such because the data indicates the problems are not what is being claimed they are.


Read between the lines. Folks aren’t happy with their investment.


If we have to "read between the lines" we are making WAGs with no data other than personal beliefs.

Quote:
Quote:
That is a scary thought .... forget the facts just have a problem?


One needn’t forget the facts in order to take issue.


We do when "reading between the lines" is a requirement ....

Quote:
Quote:
It is the point of discussion though/


Entitlements are but a fraction of government waste.


Can you enumerate the larger percentage sources for us?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Customer base...


Same thing applies, which is why some products fail the first release and succeed only after they charge more for them in the second release.


Sounds like the one that had to change is the one that was wrong.


Quote:
There was no change made other than the selling price.


Quote:
Change nonetheless. Can I get any hope with that?


Huh? You have nothing other than a political agenda?

Quote:
Yeah, that’s what I thought.


Yep ... you have nothing but smoke and mirrors so if we really believe and read between the lines we too can join your religion of politics.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Unless they say they would do so, there is no basis to draw such a conclusion.
Quote:
As opposed to making a pure assumption? I am basing it on the data available. If you have other data I would be happy to review it, but your assumptions for others are not supported by statements made by various groups.


If you're basing on the available data, then you should account for all of it. Those complaining of having to pay taxes are paying taxes. This indicates that they have a problem with the return on investment, not that they are simply paying taxes. Make sense? 8-[

Quote:
Promoting the survival of the species is good. Promoting the health and well being of the majority of the species is good.
Quote:
Yes, and a gamble of that magnitude is not one I would want to make, would you?


Given how versatile, generally strong, and intelligent humans are, sure, I’d lay it on the line short of an ELE. It's probably the only time you'd catch me gambling. The house ultimately wins, you know.

Quote:
Where is the "business" dictionary with the different definitions from the common for the terms?


The definition you yourself provided is general enough to fit the customer I have already described—“A party that receives or consumes products (goods or services) and has the ability to choose between different products and suppliers. See also buyer”. A party isn’t necessarily a specific person, much less an end user. Note that this party consumes OR receives, not just consumes. The part that doesn’t fit, admittedly, is the ability to choose different product and suppliers. This specific part doesn’t work when dealing with customer-supplier relations internal to the same organization.

If you’d like to continue going by your own criteria on what constitutes a customer, that’s fine so long as it fits the definition. However, you can’t tell me that a party isn’t a customer simply because it doesn’t fit your particular set of rules. :razz:

Quote:
Wrong about wanting tires from a clothier, since a customer doing so should not be wrong in this discussion tract.


At what point, I suppose, chance of one getting what they want, render one being wrong? :-s

Quote:
Quote:
The sample sizes we do have are more than sufficient to draw reasonable conclusions on the population.


Really? What exactly is the sample size and what statistical evidence do you have to support it being representative of the population in general?


So long as we’re going off what people say as opposed to what they do, there’s little sense in arguing the point further. =;

Quote:
That is an anecdotal reference for a generalization?


It’s the only data I have. Clearly I’m not the only one to rely on anecdote when that’s all there is. :razz:

Quote:
Since you have lost the ability to use context I will break it down.


Assuming, of course, that you have no problem communicating it. :razz:

Quote:
Why would they approach you if they do not know what they want? (answer this)


Because they want something.

Quote:
If they DO know what they want and go to someone who sells such an item the premise they do not know what they need is false.


No, they may very well understand what they want. However, it may not be what they need.

Quote:
If they do not know what they need they will go to others demanding to be sold something, but none will know what that something may be.


As you say, you can only go off what they say (they want). I don’t see having to quiz a customer nor direct them elsewhere being so much a problem.

Quote:
Business wise, which woulod be the same as how long to cook a pizza if the business was pizzas.


Could be, yes. If, on the other hand, I ran a haberdashery and someone wanted snow tires, I couldn’t technically say that a person was a customer if I had no product for them to recieve or consume, now could I? :mrgreen:

Quote:
Even if it is not what they need? Is that not the point of being wrong? You can convince them they want a aspirin and make them happy when you sell it to them, but if they needed a chemotherapy drug they will be very unhappy when they find out.


Misleading a customer, purposely or not, doesn't make the customer wrong.

Quote:
Like on a mountain road where there is insufficient shoulders and heavy traffic? How about someone driving with run flat tires?


How about it? At the end of the day, not knowing how to do the right thing hardly precludes one from knowing what the right thing to do is.

Quote:
I dislike ignorance as a general principle for such a decision.


Same here, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Quote:
Quote:
You don’t have to provide the general welfare in order to promote it.


In some cases you do.
[/quote]

Encouraging, possibly even incentivizing it, in such cases, becomes something other than promotion?

Quote:
Quote:
Read between the lines. Folks aren’t happy with their investment.


If we have to "read between the lines" we are making WAGs with no data other than personal beliefs.


Really? Like the “belief” that those complaining about taxes, apparently not wanting to pay any, actually do pay taxes? Know the difference between those folks and the ones that aren't paying? That's right--the one's not paying taxes aren't complaining about taxes they have to pay.

Quote:
Quote:
One needn’t forget the facts in order to take issue.


We do when "reading between the lines" is a requirement ....


In this case, “reading between the lines” translates into “considering all known facts” or "what you know", not discounting that which logically follows from what you know.

Quote:
Quote:
Entitlements are but a fraction of government waste.


Can you enumerate the larger percentage sources for us?


Generally speaking, insert any given lean business process waste <here>.

Quote:
Quote:
Change nonetheless. Can I get any hope with that?


Huh? You have nothing other than a political agenda?


Really? It was a joke. Point was, change is change. If you’ve got a specific type of change you’re willing to accept as an answer, please make it known before asking in general terms. :mrgreen:

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 7:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Unless they say they would do so, there is no basis to draw such a conclusion.
Quote:
As opposed to making a pure assumption? I am basing it on the data available. If you have other data I would be happy to review it, but your assumptions for others are not supported by statements made by various groups.


If you're basing on the available data, then you should account for all of it. Those complaining of having to pay taxes are paying taxes. This indicates that they have a problem with the return on investment, not that they are simply paying taxes. Make sense? 8-[


Some of those complaining about paying taxes are paying, but others are not. Those paying taxes even though complaining are more probably doing so because non-payment is a criminal offense. Assuming the ROI is the issue is just that, an assumption.


Quote:
Quote:
Promoting the survival of the species is good. Promoting the health and well being of the majority of the species is good.
Quote:
Yes, and a gamble of that magnitude is not one I would want to make, would you?


Given how versatile, generally strong, and intelligent humans are, sure, I’d lay it on the line short of an ELE. It's probably the only time you'd catch me gambling. The house ultimately wins, you know.


Given the number of nuclear weapons and the domino effect of even one being used in anger in the right area that house has a clear advantage.

Quote:
Quote:
Where is the "business" dictionary with the different definitions from the common for the terms?


The definition you yourself provided is general enough to fit the customer I have already described—“A party that receives or consumes products (goods or services) and has the ability to choose between different products and suppliers. See also buyer”. A party isn’t necessarily a specific person, much less an end user. Note that this party consumes OR receives, not just consumes. The part that doesn’t fit, admittedly, is the ability to choose different product and suppliers. This specific part doesn’t work when dealing with customer-supplier relations internal to the same organization.


Most of the distributors with which I have have information have restictive contracts, which would limit them to the pass through, as you noted. Only the consumer in such a case has that critical choice option.

Quote:
If you’d like to continue going by your own criteria on what constitutes a customer, that’s fine so long as it fits the definition. However, you can’t tell me that a party isn’t a customer simply because it doesn’t fit your particular set of rules. :razz:


You noted how your defintion did not match that of the business dictionary as I noted.

Quote:
Quote:
Wrong about wanting tires from a clothier, since a customer doing so should not be wrong in this discussion tract.


At what point, I suppose, chance of one getting what they want, render one being wrong? :-s


I would guess that a 0.0% chance would be a failure no matter what and only one failure is required to negate the saying. \:D/

Quote:
Quote:
The sample sizes we do have are more than sufficient to draw reasonable conclusions on the population.


Really? What exactly is the sample size and what statistical evidence do you have to support it being representative of the population in general?


Quote:
So long as we’re going off what people say as opposed to what they do, there’s little sense in arguing the point further. =;


Given the assumptions required to connect action to your belief, I would agree that what people do cannot be tied to any particular reason without their specific statements.

Quote:
Quote:
That is an anecdotal reference for a generalization?


It’s the only data I have. Clearly I’m not the only one to rely on anecdote when that’s all there is. :razz:


Except I am not also assuming a reason without a specific statement.

Quote:
Quote:
Since you have lost the ability to use context I will break it down.


Assuming, of course, that you have no problem communicating it. :razz:


No assumption as I could not have such a problem. :mrgreen: :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
Why would they approach you if they do not know what they want? (answer this)


Because they want something.


And you supply everything? If not how do they know your something will assist them and the something at the clothier will not?

Quote:
Quote:
If they DO know what they want and go to someone who sells such an item the premise they do not know what they need is false.


No, they may very well understand what they want. However, it may not be what they need.


But was there not a claim that the customer does not have to know what they want? If they do not know what they want your example is not applicable.

Quote:
Quote:
If they do not know what they need they will go to others demanding to be sold something, but none will know what that something may be.


As you say, you can only go off what they say (they want). I don’t see having to quiz a customer nor direct them elsewhere being so much a problem.


But if you have to direct them elsewhere, would that not make them wrong for going to the incorrect source? #-o

Quote:
Quote:
Business wise, which woulod be the same as how long to cook a pizza if the business was pizzas.


Could be, yes. If, on the other hand, I ran a haberdashery and someone wanted snow tires, I couldn’t technically say that a person was a customer if I had no product for them to recieve or consume, now could I? :mrgreen:


They are a customer, just not your customer and they were wrong to go to the wrong source.

Quote:
Quote:
Even if it is not what they need? Is that not the point of being wrong? You can convince them they want a aspirin and make them happy when you sell it to them, but if they needed a chemotherapy drug they will be very unhappy when they find out.


Misleading a customer, purposely or not, doesn't make the customer wrong.


Why not? If they are never wrong anything they buy from anyone would have to be correct by definition, right? :-s

Quote:
Quote:
Like on a mountain road where there is insufficient shoulders and heavy traffic? How about someone driving with run flat tires?


How about it? At the end of the day, not knowing how to do the right thing hardly precludes one from knowing what the right thing to do is.


In the cases mentioned the right thing was different in each case and different from your example.

Quote:
Quote:
I dislike ignorance as a general principle for such a decision.


Same here, but that’s not what I’m talking about.


Could haqve fooled me. :mrgreen: :twisted:

Quote:
Quote:
You don’t have to provide the general welfare in order to promote it.


In some cases you do.
[/quote]

Quote:
Encouraging, possibly even incentivizing it, in such cases, becomes something other than promotion?


In the opinion of some, but that is just the opinion of one here.

Quote:
Quote:
Read between the lines. Folks aren’t happy with their investment.


If we have to "read between the lines" we are making WAGs with no data other than personal beliefs.


Quote:
Really? Like the “belief” that those complaining about taxes, apparently not wanting to pay any, actually do pay taxes?


Given not paying taxes is a criminal offense and those folks are not being arrested, it is more likely they are still paying or will soon be one of those being arrested.

Quote:
Know the difference between those folks and the ones that aren't paying? That's right--the one's not paying taxes aren't complaining about taxes they have to pay.


Actually, some of them are still complaining as some of those tax avoidance rants evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
One needn’t forget the facts in order to take issue.


We do when "reading between the lines" is a requirement ....


Quote:
In this case, “reading between the lines” translates into “considering all known facts” or "what you know", not discounting that which logically follows from what you know.


Reading between the lines is not dealing with known data just assumptions.

Quote:
Quote:
Entitlements are but a fraction of government waste.


Can you enumerate the larger percentage sources for us?


Quote:
Generally speaking, insert any given lean business process waste <here>.


That does not prove the majority consideration of those supposed wastes, just an assumption of such.

Quote:
Quote:
Change nonetheless. Can I get any hope with that?


Huh? You have nothing other than a political agenda?


Quote:
Really? It was a joke. Point was, change is change. If you’ve got a specific type of change you’re willing to accept as an answer, please make it known before asking in general terms. :mrgreen:


How about a change to clear evidence rather than that assumed by reading between the lines? :-({|=

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
To get an unbiased comparison of the interest in paying no taxes and paying less taxes, I did a Google search for each and noted the difference in the results.

pay no taxes
308,000,000 results

pay less taxes
17,800,000 results

Over 17 times increase of the number of hits for "no" over "less". No taxes clearly has the greater presence on the interwebs.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Sounds like the crux boils down to being wrong as a customer vs. being wrong and happening to be a customer at the same time. The latter is an easy argument to make, as everyone at some point is a customer and is wrong about something at some point. Except, of course, you. :razz: From a strict business perspective, there is no such thing as a customer being wrong. It's the same type principle as survival of the fittest. The end defines the means.

Wayne Stollings wrote:
To get an unbiased comparison of the interest in paying no taxes and paying less taxes, I did a Google search for each and noted the difference in the results.

pay no taxes
308,000,000 results

pay less taxes
17,800,000 results

Over 17 times increase of the number of hits for "no" over "less". No taxes clearly has the greater presence on the interwebs.


Hell, I too would opt for none vs. less when given a meaningless choice. The bulk of the "nones" know full well they won't get away with such. A portion of them pollute the "lessers" because their knowing better gets the best of them. But, you go strictly on what is said. I'm sufficiently confident in my experience and am sticking to my guns. No sense trading my assumptions for one of another.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:24 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Sounds like the crux boils down to being wrong as a customer vs. being wrong and happening to be a customer at the same time. The latter is an easy argument to make, as everyone at some point is a customer and is wrong about something at some point.


Yes, they will be wrong about a lot of things and many of those things will be directly related to their being a customer.

Quote:
From a strict business perspective, there is no such thing as a customer being wrong.


Sure there is. If a customer buys an inferior product/service at a comparable price and availability to a superior product/service, how can that customer be said to have been right by any business definition other than your belief?

Quote:
It's the same type principle as survival of the fittest. The end defines the means.


I suppose so. If one defines the fittest as the one which survives, even if that is not the case by any other definition, one has created a self-defining criteria fallacy. Survival of the luckiest would work just as well for the latter definition attempt.

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
To get an unbiased comparison of the interest in paying no taxes and paying less taxes, I did a Google search for each and noted the difference in the results.

pay no taxes
308,000,000 results

pay less taxes
17,800,000 results

Over 17 times increase of the number of hits for "no" over "less". No taxes clearly has the greater presence on the interwebs.


Hell, I too would opt for none vs. less when given a meaningless choice. The bulk of the "nones" know full well they won't get away with such. A portion of them pollute the "lessers" because their knowing better gets the best of them. But, you go strictly on what is said. I'm sufficiently confident in my experience and am sticking to my guns. No sense trading my assumptions for one of another.


The choice really is meaningless, but they are not being given such a choice as much as they are proposing that particular "choice" as a desired outcome. The difference is huge.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
I was wrong once, I believe it was a Tuesday .... :razz: :lol:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Sounds like the crux boils down to being wrong as a customer vs. being wrong and happening to be a customer at the same time. The latter is an easy argument to make, as everyone at some point is a customer and is wrong about something at some point.
Yes, they will be wrong about a lot of things and many of those things will be directly related to their being a customer.
When I have what follows below as an example, I am not convinced.

Quote:
Quote:
From a strict business perspective, there is no such thing as a customer being wrong.
Sure there is. If a customer buys an inferior product/service at a comparable price and availability to a superior product/service, how can that customer be said to have been right by any business definition other than your belief?
Learning of a better deal after the fact doesn't indicate that one didn't make the best decision they could with the information they had at the time. The "why" also remains. If a business misled one into doing something they shouldn't have done, then the business is wrong, not the customer.

Quote:
Quote:
It's the same type principle as survival of the fittest. The end defines the means.
I suppose so. If one defines the fittest as the one which survives, even if that is not the case by any other definition, one has created a self-defining criteria fallacy. Survival of the luckiest would work just as well for the latter definition attempt.
There is no attempt. The fittest nor the customer is hardly defined by specific instances involving singular individuals. When we have to resort to ridiculous hypotheticals like someone demanding tacos from a hot dog vendor to make the case that the customer isn't always right, then we've missed the point.

Quote:
The choice really is meaningless, but they are not being given such a choice as much as they are proposing that particular "choice" as a desired outcome. The difference is huge.
Of course, they're proposing an outcome they know isn't going to happen.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Sounds like the crux boils down to being wrong as a customer vs. being wrong and happening to be a customer at the same time. The latter is an easy argument to make, as everyone at some point is a customer and is wrong about something at some point.
Yes, they will be wrong about a lot of things and many of those things will be directly related to their being a customer.


Fosgate wrote:
When I have what follows below as an example, I am not convinced.


But what follows below contained an inaccurate assumption.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From a strict business perspective, there is no such thing as a customer being wrong.
Sure there is. If a customer buys an inferior product/service at a comparable price and availability to a superior product/service, how can that customer be said to have been right by any business definition other than your belief?
Learning of a better deal after the fact doesn't indicate that one didn't make the best decision they could with the information they had at the time.


There was no mention of a different time frame for finding the better product, but you assumed that must be the case ... and incorrectly so.

Quote:
The "why" also remains. If a business misled one into doing something they shouldn't have done, then the business is wrong, not the customer.


Assuming the business misleads the customer, which does not have to happen at all.

Quote:
Quote:
It's the same type principle as survival of the fittest. The end defines the means.
I suppose so. If one defines the fittest as the one which survives, even if that is not the case by any other definition, one has created a self-defining criteria fallacy. Survival of the luckiest would work just as well for the latter definition attempt.
Quote:
There is no attempt.


It was a poor attempt, but an attempt none the less. :mrgreen:

Quote:
The fittest nor the customer is hardly defined by specific instances involving singular individuals.


A singular individual is not a customer? A singular incident is not a sale? All one needs to refute a general statement is a singular example of failure .... until it comes to this discussion, it seems. :-


Quote:
When we have to resort to ridiculous hypotheticals like someone demanding tacos from a hot dog vendor to make the case that the customer isn't always right, then we've missed the point.


No, we have shown the fallacy of the general statement.

Quote:
Quote:
The choice really is meaningless, but they are not being given such a choice as much as they are proposing that particular "choice" as a desired outcome. The difference is huge.
Of course, they're proposing an outcome they know isn't going to happen.


So you know what thousands of strangers are really thinking? :shock:

Why do they so fervently make such propositions if they know it is not ever going to happen?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group