On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:50:04 +0100, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:34:15 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Ah.. I just don't have a negative perspective about established
businesses.

Of course, or how could you still participate so heartily?

I don't think that people come into their offices every
day with the express intent in mind of how to screw the customer.

They have little time to give it a thought.
It's a condition induced by circumstances beyond their direct control.


Yes and no. It's really the responsibility of senior management to
create a culture of maximising business profitability. In most cases,
for one reason or another, this implies having happy customers,
whether it be for repeat business, recommendation or even just not
having customers who won't pay.



Certainly businesses do have the objective of maximising the amount of
money that they can obtain from a customer and in the shortest time
possible and for the least cost.

Yes.

However, that is simplistic. If
the customer feels that they have been screwed, they won't buy from
that business again. If it's a business that relies on repeat
orders, then having customers feeling screwed for whatever reason is
counterproductive. Businesses that achieve mainly one-time sales are
generally in a competitive market and benefit from customer
recommendation.

If it's not possible to survive without screwing the customer then
the competition will be doing the same. So what's to choose between
them?

Oh, come on, that's jaundiced. A business transaction should be
beneficial for both parties. That means that the customer gets what
he wants for a fair price and the supplier makes sufficient money to
sustain his business and please his shareholders.

If customers have the attitude that they want the lowest price, come
what may and that any profit on the part of the supplier constitutes
them being ripped off, then the problem lies with the customer. It's
not reasonable to expect a quality product or service *and* for the
supplier not to make a good margin to be there to sustain that.



That is not to say that large national businesses
making one time sales don't screw customers - they spend marketing
money on image and the numbers game. The windows industry certainly
has this issue.

It's certainly true that there is far too much government interference
in business, although corporate taxation in the UK is not the highest
in the world by a long way.

If the owners of local and regional businesses make good money out of
them, then good for them as far as I am concerned because they took
the initial risk.

For the large national and multinational companies, the "guvnors" are
ultimately us through our investments directly or indirectly in the
stock market. We would like to maximise the return on our
investments, so there is no point in complaining if we feel that said
companies are making a good profit.

Glad to hear that you own the world you live in and that all is
generally well with it. IMO though, this is a level of self deception
that's necessary to allow you to continue to participate. That's also
why the situation will continue to deteriorate.


Everybody owns the world that they live in to a greater or a lesser
extent. Generally the extent depends on their willingness tp
participate and their understanding of the rules of the game.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com