On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 02:04:26 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
Sure we all have pet brands and solutions. I also know why Andy (and for
that matter IMM) dismiss some classes of product without consideration.
When looking for a tool of a type that I've never had before, I begin
by giving my amount of use and expectation of what I will need to
achieve a lot of thought. This helps me to select whether I am
looking for low, mid or high end.
For example, when I bought an angle grinder, it was a Bosch green one
at the lower end of mid range. I don't use it that much and it does
a good and reliable job. In most cases, I tend to leave out the very
top and very bottom ends but do sanity check them.
Then I look at which manufacturers have a consistently good track
record for the given tool type. From that it becomes pretty easy to
narrow the selection to manufacturers and price points and to end up
with a short list.
I have no difficulty with Andy saying "This is what I would do and here
is why",
This is what I try to do.
I don't believe Andy is always right. Or myself or anyone else for that
matter. I have found it is difficult to achieve anything of value and
never be wrong or make mistakes. While I get the feeling he and I share
similar views on many things, I also get the feeling that he is on
occasion perhaps more extreme in those views.
In some cases yes. For me, good service and backup are extremely
important and this means doing it properly, not by swap and disposal.
I can fully accept that there are scenarios where disposal and
replacement are the reasonable solution. I don't like to buy power
tools on that basis. I want to be able to buy spares or get products
fixed. Typically I find that if that infrastructure is in place, the
product has been made to a good standard anyway and the need doesn't
arise very often.
I am very intolerant of poor customer service and in particular of
retailers attempting to slippery shoulder their responsibilities. On
that, I am unapologetically clear. I always take the position of
expecting people to do what they say they are going to do. After
all, they are perfectly happy to make those promises at time of sale.
Sometimes I even go to the trouble of pointing out to somebody about
overpromising when I suspect that they may not be able to deliver.
However, once all is agreed and money changes hands, that's it - I do
expect to get what has been agreed, and usually that means hassle and
time waste free continuous use of a product for a reasonable period of
time.
Sometimes something goes wrong and a fix is required. Then I am very
pleased if the supplier makes the effort to fix the problem, bur I am
looking to them to do that quickly and expeditiously and without my
needing to push them. I won't accept that fixing a problem is
somebody else's problem - e.g. retailers saying that the manufacturer
is to blame or they have to send the item to that place for repair.
If something is dependent on a third party for a fix, then I don't
believe that that absolves the supplier from responsibility (and
neither does the law). The supplier can always fix the problem, even
if that means refund or replace.
If a supplier makes reasonable effort to do what they said that they
would do at the outset or something close to it then I seldom push
them on compensating me for lost time and cost.
However, if their attitude is markedly different to what was promised,
I will go for the throat.
Some people feel that it is OK to have a situation of a big gap
between promise and deliver, perhaps through not wanting
confrontation. I simply don't subscribe to that school of thought
and don't feel that it is unreasonable.
--
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|