EnviroLink Forum

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



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



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]



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.



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.



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

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




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



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



Evidently not.



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



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



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



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



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



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?



I hope not.



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.



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



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

Been busy. Haven't forgot about the thread. Be back soon.

_________________
TANG SOO!

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

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



“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!



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



Only if I have failed at some point in communicating.



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?



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



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.



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



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.



You want more dependency?



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.



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

_________________
TANG SOO!

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



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



I can only go by what they say.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



If they ever know.



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



It is the point of discussion though/



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

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.



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]

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.



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



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



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.



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.



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.



“Unless they know what they want…”

“…but do not know what it is.”

Do they or don’t they?



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



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.




Population isn’t the only lending factor.



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



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



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



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



Entitlements are but a fraction of government waste.





Change nonetheless. Can I get any hope with that?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

_________________
TANG SOO!

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



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.



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



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

[/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?



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



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



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



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.




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



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?



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.




That is an anecdotal reference for a generalization?



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.




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



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.



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.



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



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



In some cases you do.



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



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



Can you enumerate the larger percentage sources for us?







Huh? You have nothing other than a political agenda?



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

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?



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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



Because they want something.



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



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.



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?



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



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.



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

[/quote]

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



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.



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.



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



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.

_________________
TANG SOO!

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.




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.



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.



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



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.





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.



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



No assumption as I could not have such a problem.



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



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.



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



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



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



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



Could haqve fooled me.

[/quote]



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





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.



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





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





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





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

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

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. 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.



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!

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



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?



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.



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

I was wrong once, I believe it was a Tuesday ....

_________________
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

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

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.

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.

Of course, they're proposing an outcome they know isn't going to happen.

_________________
TANG SOO!

But what follows below contained an inaccurate assumption.



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.



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



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



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.




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



So you know what thousands of strangers are really thinking?

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