EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:28 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: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:57 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2453
Location: The only hole built above ground
Quote:
Hardly, as they are opposite ends of the spectrum.


Except for the part about being corrupt of course.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:24 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
SiberD wrote:
Quote:
Hardly, as they are opposite ends of the spectrum.


Except for the part about being corrupt of course.


There is corruption and those who are not corrupt all along the scale.

_________________
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 23, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2453
Location: The only hole built above ground
Wayne Stollings wrote:
SiberD wrote:
Quote:
Hardly, as they are opposite ends of the spectrum.


Except for the part about being corrupt of course.


There is corruption and those who are not corrupt all along the scale.


I think the corrupted outweighs the uncorrupted all along the scale, big time.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, they want the system gone and try to use misleading and anecdotal information to acheive that goal, but the actual data does not support those claims.


If your daily utility demand came at a time when you had no service, despite that service otherwise being available 95% of the time, would you put down the electric and water companies despite the data not supporting your claims? Would your concerns be any less valid?

Whether you look at it this way or in terms of government services/entitlements, we have a customer base. With the latter, taxpayers are practically customers. Some don't think they are getting their money's worth. In business, we would never--ever--respond to dissatisfied customers by providing data indicating that we were an overall solid performer. That's what you're doing, assuming of course folks accept your information at face value. Politicians do a particularly good job at it as well. Enough folks fall for it to keep them in office.

Knowing data is great. Knowing when to use it and what to do with it is an entirely different matter. At the end of the day, enough is enough, however much that might be. The customer is always right.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:07 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, they want the system gone and try to use misleading and anecdotal information to acheive that goal, but the actual data does not support those claims.


If your daily utility demand came at a time when you had no service, despite that service otherwise being available 95% of the time, would you put down the electric and water companies despite the data not supporting your claims? Would your concerns be any less valid?


My concerns would be valid for me if the service was actually out, but if 99% of the rest of the population had no similar problems the data would support it as a minimal problem at best. If I was mistaken in the service being out and my main breaker had tripped and my interiror water valve had been turned off there would be no problem other than my mistake. Even if an action causes one death in a billion instances, there would not be a major concern given a supportive cost benefit analysis, except if you were that billionth person.

Quote:
Whether you look at it this way or in terms of government services/entitlements, we have a customer base. With the latter, taxpayers are practically customers. Some don't think they are getting their money's worth. In business, we would never--ever--respond to dissatisfied customers by providing data indicating that we were an overall solid performer.


Sure you would if the alternative was to change your process to address that dissatisfied customer which would in turn cause more of the formerly satisfied customers to become dissatisfied or cost more to correct than the profit of that one dissatisfied customer. Any other approach is not condusive to staying in business.

Quote:
That's what you're doing, assuming of course folks accept your information at face value.


No, the complaint is the AMOUNT of perceived abuse and the assumed costs of said abuse, not that anyone in particular has been involved with not getting the service they should from the entitlements programs. This is countered by the data showing where the areas in which the money is allocated and what would be available for the type of abuse claimed.

Quote:
Knowing data is great. Knowing when to use it and what to do with it is an entirely different matter.


Yes, that seems to be the case here. The opposition to the data based on a customer belief

Quote:
At the end of the day, enough is enough, however much that might be. The customer is always right.


No, that is a false idea, the customer is far too often wrong and must be told so. They are still the customer, so they must be told in a nice way, but still told. Just as in the case of my belief the power and water service had failed, I would need to be told the service was there and my connection was the real problem even if I am a customer saying otherwise.

_________________
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 23, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
My concerns would be valid for me if the service was actually out, but if 99% of the rest of the population had no similar problems the data would support it as a minimal problem at best. If I was mistaken in the service being out and my main breaker had tripped and my interiror water valve had been turned off there would be no problem other than my mistake. Even if an action causes one death in a billion instances, there would not be a major concern given a supportive cost benefit analysis, except if you were that billionth person.


If 99% of the rest of population...if you were mistaken...if I added enough "if/then" conditions...but I didn't. We're simply talking about a service that is available 95% of the time, barring domestic maintenance issues or misunderstandings. That 95% can be a great thing or a phenominally bad thing depending on when and/or where the outages actually occur.

Quote:
Sure you would if the alternative was to change your process to address that dissatisfied customer which would in turn cause more of the formerly satisfied customers to become dissatisfied or cost more to correct than the profit of that one dissatisfied customer. Any other approach is not condusive to staying in business.


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. I would offer it up, however, if there was a known potential solution in the near future that would not negatively affect existing satisfied customers.

Adjusting for one just to piss off existing, satisfied customers? What? Where did that come from?

Quote:
No, the complaint is the AMOUNT of perceived abuse and the assumed costs of said abuse, not that anyone in particular has been involved with not getting the service they should from the entitlements programs. This is countered by the data showing where the areas in which the money is allocated and what would be available for the type of abuse claimed.


No. Again, the actual compliant is the existence of the system.

Quote:
Yes, that seems to be the case here. The opposition to the data based on a customer belief


It’s hardly the case here. The only relevant data is that customers aren’t getting what they want from their investment.

Quote:
No, that is a false idea, the customer is far too often wrong and must be told so.


To the contrary. The customer may not know what they want or how to ask, but they know with confidence they want and sure as hell know what they don't want. That’s what we’re talking about here. It is up to the provider to determine and satisfactorily meet their need. Giving customers something they don’t want and/or when they don’t want doesn’t fly.

Quote:
They are still the customer, so they must be told in a nice way, but still told. Just as in the case of my belief the power and water service had failed, I would need to be told the service was there and my connection was the real problem even if I am a customer saying otherwise.


Alright, from the standpoint of demand, the customer is always right. Better?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:21 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
My concerns would be valid for me if the service was actually out, but if 99% of the rest of the population had no similar problems the data would support it as a minimal problem at best. If I was mistaken in the service being out and my main breaker had tripped and my interiror water valve had been turned off there would be no problem other than my mistake. Even if an action causes one death in a billion instances, there would not be a major concern given a supportive cost benefit analysis, except if you were that billionth person.


If 99% of the rest of population...if you were mistaken...if I added enough "if/then" conditions...but I didn't.


Actually you did, you added the biggest if/then which was if the person complaining actually had a problem with the service. It the case of the entitlements that is not the case. They perceive a problem with others using the service.


Quote:
We're simply talking about a service that is available 95% of the time, barring domestic maintenance issues or misunderstandings. That 95% can be a great thing or a phenominally bad thing depending on when and/or where the outages actually occur.


And that is not a huge IF in this discussion on entitlements?

Quote:
Quote:
Sure you would if the alternative was to change your process to address that dissatisfied customer which would in turn cause more of the formerly satisfied customers to become dissatisfied or cost more to correct than the profit of that one dissatisfied customer. Any other approach is not condusive to staying in business.


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.





http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/co ... 885038.htm
I get a kick out of business buzzwords. Reengineering. Rightsizing. Repurposing. One of the latest you may have heard bandied about is "Voice of the Customer." It's a phrase that, in fairness, recognizes that companies can go astray by making decisions without fully understanding their effect on those they serve. But I've also heard the term invoked as a way to trump (or delay) an idea born of inspiration or imagination—as if by magically incorporating "the voice of the customer" a company can somehow eliminate risk.

Regardless of whether it's used as an offensive or defensive weapon, the voice of the customer is a double-edged sword. It's not that we shouldn't listen to customers or place special emphasis on understanding their wants and needs, concerns and complaints. It's that we must do so with discernment: Sometimes the customer is just plain wrong.

http://www.customerservicemanager.com/i ... -right.htm

http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives ... ays-right/

Quote:
I would offer it up, however, if there was a known potential solution in the near future that would not negatively affect existing satisfied customers.


An if? :mrgreen:

Quote:
Adjusting for one just to piss off existing, satisfied customers? What? Where did that come from?


No, I never said that. I did say that making changes to make one customer happy can cause other customers to become unhappy in the process. It can also cause more expense than it warrants too.

Quote:
Quote:
No, the complaint is the AMOUNT of perceived abuse and the assumed costs of said abuse, not that anyone in particular has been involved with not getting the service they should from the entitlements programs. This is countered by the data showing where the areas in which the money is allocated and what would be available for the type of abuse claimed.


No. Again, the actual compliant is the existence of the system.


That may be the ultimate compalint by some, but the one being vocalized is about the amount of perceived abuse.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, that seems to be the case here. The opposition to the data based on a customer belief


It’s hardly the case here. The only relevant data is that customers aren’t getting what they want from their investment.


Not as much as they oppose making any investment in society and they have not become customers of the service or they would not continue to complain.

Quote:
Quote:
No, that is a false idea, the customer is far too often wrong and must be told so.


To the contrary. The customer may not know what they want or how to ask, but they know with confidence they want and sure as hell know what they don't want.


No they do not. Many THINK they know what they want and do not want, but most of the time they really have no idea.


Quote:
That’s what we’re talking about here. It is up to the provider to determine and satisfactorily meet their need. Giving customers something they don’t want and/or when they don’t want doesn’t fly.


Well, the people complaining about the entitlements are not using them, do not plan on using them, but would happily do so if the situation arose. That means they were not customers, are not customers, and probably will not be customers for a long time. They are concerned with the present and not the future or the benefits to society at large.


Quote:
Quote:
They are still the customer, so they must be told in a nice way, but still told. Just as in the case of my belief the power and water service had failed, I would need to be told the service was there and my connection was the real problem even if I am a customer saying otherwise.


Alright, from the standpoint of demand, the customer is always right. Better?


No, they still are not always right. They will demand twice the quality for half the price of your cost and delievered immediately with no shipping charges if given the chance.

_________________
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 Mar 24, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Actually you did, you added the biggest if/then which was if the person complaining actually had a problem with the service. It the case of the entitlements that is not the case. They perceive a problem with others using the service.


Yes, which translates into them having a problem with that in which they are investing. The service is to society as a whole, not just the individuals receiving specific benefits.

Quote:
Quote:
We're simply talking about a service that is available 95% of the time, barring domestic maintenance issues or misunderstandings. That 95% can be a great thing or a phenominally bad thing depending on when and/or where the outages actually occur.


And that is not a huge IF in this discussion on entitlements?


Hey, it's my hypothetical, don't go changing it. :lol:

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!

Quote:
Quote:
I would offer it up, however, if there was a known potential solution in the near future that would not negatively affect existing satisfied customers.


An if? :mrgreen:


Of course. No sense in bragging about how good I am to someone that obviously has a problem with me. That's just asinine.

Quote:
No, I never said that. I did say that making changes to make one customer happy can cause other customers to become unhappy in the process. It can also cause more expense than it warrants too.


It can, but not necessarily. Honestly, I don't even know why you'd mention such a thing. We go through great pains to ensure any permanent corrections do not adversely affect the existing value stream. You don't just shoot from the hip. But then, maybe you do. 8)

Quote:
Quote:
No. Again, the actual compliant is the existence of the system.


That may be the ultimate compalint by some, but the one being vocalized is about the amount of perceived abuse.


Read between the lines.

Quote:
Quote:
It’s hardly the case here. The only relevant data is that customers aren’t getting what they want from their investment.


Not as much as they oppose making any investment in society and they have not become customers of the service or they would not continue to complain.


Society IS the customer.

Quote:
Quote:
To the contrary. The customer may not know what they want or how to ask, but they know with confidence they want and sure as hell know what they don't want.


No they do not. Many THINK they know what they want and do not want, but most of the time they really have no idea.


I've never had a customer NOT able to tell me what they don't want. It's pretty easy to do, especially after the fact. Not knowing what they want up front, I can understand. My point, however, was that the customer is always right in terms of demand. They may not know what they want, but they know that they want something. They may communicate it articulately or via complete bullshit, but it is evident in our discussion what the customer wants and does not want. Obviously, the customer doesn't want abuse. You're getting hung up on a technicality--the amount of abuse. It goes further than that. You're not aligned with the customer.

Quote:
Well, the people complaining about the entitlements are not using them, do not plan on using them, but would happily do so if the situation arose.


Again, anyone investing is a customer.

Quote:
That means they were not customers, are not customers, and probably will not be customers for a long time. They are concerned with the present and not the future or the benefits to society at large.


Of course they are. If we continue the way we are, everyone eventually loses.

Quote:
No, they still are not always right. They will demand twice the quality for half the price of your cost and delievered immediately with no shipping charges if given the chance.
[/quote]

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

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:49 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Actually you did, you added the biggest if/then which was if the person complaining actually had a problem with the service. It the case of the entitlements that is not the case. They perceive a problem with others using the service.


Yes, which translates into them having a problem with that in which they are investing. The service is to society as a whole, not just the individuals receiving specific benefits.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We're simply talking about a service that is available 95% of the time, barring domestic maintenance issues or misunderstandings. That 95% can be a great thing or a phenominally bad thing depending on when and/or where the outages actually occur.


And that is not a huge IF in this discussion on entitlements?


Hey, it's my hypothetical, don't go changing it. :lol:


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

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:
Quote:
I would offer it up, however, if there was a known potential solution in the near future that would not negatively affect existing satisfied customers.


An if? :mrgreen:


Of course. No sense in bragging about how good I am to someone that obviously has a problem with me. That's just asinine.


But if the customer is always right you must be a problem .... right. #-o :-

Quote:
Quote:
No, I never said that. I did say that making changes to make one customer happy can cause other customers to become unhappy in the process. It can also cause more expense than it warrants too.


It can, but not necessarily. Honestly, I don't even know why you'd mention such a thing. We go through great pains to ensure any permanent corrections do not adversely affect the existing value stream. You don't just shoot from the hip. But then, maybe you do. 8)


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No. Again, the actual compliant is the existence of the system.


That may be the ultimate compalint by some, but the one being vocalized is about the amount of perceived abuse.


Read between the lines.


Ok the compalint is without merit becaue there is no way to make them happy. Therefore we ignore them for the fringe view they are. :evil:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It’s hardly the case here. The only relevant data is that customers aren’t getting what they want from their investment.


Not as much as they oppose making any investment in society and they have not become customers of the service or they would not continue to complain.


Society IS the customer.


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

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To the contrary. The customer may not know what they want or how to ask, but they know with confidence they want and sure as hell know what they don't want.


No they do not. Many THINK they know what they want and do not want, but most of the time they really have no idea.


I've never had a customer NOT able to tell me what they don't want.


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.

Quote:
It's pretty easy to do, especially after the fact. Not knowing what they want up front, I can understand. My point, however, was that the customer is always right in terms of demand. They may not know what they want, but they know that they want something.


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.

Quote:
They may communicate it articulately or via complete bullshit, but it is evident in our discussion what the customer wants and does not want. Obviously, the customer doesn't want abuse. You're getting hung up on a technicality--the amount of abuse. It goes further than that. You're not aligned with the customer.


Yes I am. You are confusing the vocal fringe with being the society, which is incorrect. The customer may not want abuse, but unless they are willing to pay for it they will have to accept a level of abuse.

Quote:
Quote:
Well, the people complaining about the entitlements are not using them, do not plan on using them, but would happily do so if the situation arose.


Again, anyone investing is a customer.


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

Quote:
Quote:
That means they were not customers, are not customers, and probably will not be customers for a long time. They are concerned with the present and not the future or the benefits to society at large.


Of course they are. If we continue the way we are, everyone eventually loses.


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

Quote:
Quote:
No, they still are not always right. They will demand twice the quality for half the price of your cost and delievered immediately with no shipping charges if given the chance.


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.

_________________
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 Mar 24, 2012 12:05 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I worked for a Fortune 100 company, which also had a sister division in our offices. This sister division did a lot of custom bearing manufacture along with some other functions. One of the sales engineers and I had a running discussion on which of us had the stupidest requests for products. A couple of his more memorable examples are:

One customer wanted a specialized bearing built to demanding engineering specs to fit into a heavy prototype design. The problem was if the engineer had increased the diameter of the bearing housing by 1/32nd of an inch they would have been able to use a standard design with slightly better specifications and 1/10th the cost. It would also have improved the maintenance capacity because it was a standard component. The engineer had designed everything from the ground up and wanted everything to be that design. The production costs were much higher as were the maintenance costs, but they got what the engineer wanted ... not what they needed or should have wanted.

Another case required a specific manufacturing process, which was illegal in the US but the product was going into the defense industry and could not be manufactured outside of the US. He went around with them for months before management told them to either use what was legal for them or go elsewhere. They tried to go elsewhere because he got the same quote form different sources for over a year afterward before they finally stopped. This would have been easily solved by the use of a different and better process if the customer had listened to the advise of the product engineers.

_________________
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: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2453
Location: The only hole built above ground
Entitlements.....THE REAL STORY


with the use of one simple graphic,




Image

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:53 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
SiberD wrote:
Entitlements.....THE REAL STORY


with the use of one simple graphic,




Image


Yes!! Lets cut off support for all of those old or disabled folks dragging our economy down. They used to just die off and now they are just parasites on society.


Image

_________________
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: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:27 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2453
Location: The only hole built above ground
Geez Wayne, that's pretty cruel of you! However, math is math and the numbers show something has to be done as you cannot spend more than you bring in. So, somehow, some way, benefits have to be cut, more revenue brought in, or maybe medical costs and insurance costs need to be re-examined and be curtailed in some way.

I have the invoice my parents got from the hospital when I was born. My mother had a two day visit and the total cost of delivery, nursing care, and room came to $47 and some change. Yeah, I'm older that dirt as that was 1953, but back then people didn't need major medical insurance except for catastrophic diseases or accidents. My parents didn't have medical insurance and paid the bill out of pocket. Both insurance and medical costs in this country is outrageous.

Now, from the standpoint of medical care of the elderly, we also have to rethink some of our priorities. I'm not saying an old person should go off in some corner and die due to illness but should we be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars on an 80year old patient who has prostate cancer? Something that may prolong his life for three to six months?

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:01 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
I have blue Cross Blue Shield for medical insurance for myself and my employees. For a time we switched carriers about every year because we could bypass the double digit increase in premiums, but that became a thing of the past a few years back. Now we bump up the deductibles and such to keep the increases below 15% per year.

A week or so ago we spent the evening at the symphony where Blue Cross, our non-profit insurance carrier group, was thanked for the several thousands of dollars donated directly and even more in the form of matching funds for that event. Instead of keeping the costs at a minimum they give huge bonuses and donate to the charities. I am not opposed to donations but BCBS, but not when their costs for our insurance have more than tripled in the past 20 years.

_________________
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: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:07 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
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?

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?

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]

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.

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

Quote:
Ok the compalint is without merit becaue there is no way to make them happy. Therefore we ignore them for the fringe view they are. :evil:


Riiiiiiight. :problem:

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.

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? I don't know exactly what you mean by "special" customers. Do dealer/distributors count? 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. Basically, the only end customer concern is whether or not the product functions as intended. Expectations are defined and understood from start to finish.

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. 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.

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.

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? Is that happening?

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.

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:

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...

_________________
TANG SOO!


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], Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [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