Now-a-days, computer desks are pre-designed and pre-engineeredand…

Jeff is in the entertainment business, especially TV, which may be the closest to his “ideal” consumer controlled product in the world. Nielson’s anyone?

Well that idea is working out, look at all the high quality, consumer driven, entertainment available.

Everyone knew they needed an iPod and demanded Apple create it.
I can’t believe how many of my friends said they could not live without an internet auction site, and danged if Ebay didn’t listen.

Customers might help companies design, market, support, etc, but there is no way they will replace the teams inside the companies doing the same thing, customers do not have the time, patience or expertise.

I was all set to weigh in on this when I found:

Bryan Says:

July 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
I’ve been following this Dell Hell thing for a little while, and frankly I think Mr. Jarvis has over-reached a bit. Yes he got crappy service, and no he didn’t deserve it. But at least some of that service level was very clearly laid out in the fine print of the service agreement he bought. He should have read that more closely. Now he’s turned the episode into a hate-fest that gets a lot of eyeballs – I’m guessing the Google revenue is up!

Ms. Chapel is foaming at the mouth on the other end of this little spectrum. But some of her points, though badly worded, do hold glimmerings of truth.

Somewhere in between lies the place most of us want to be. We know that we want to pay a decent price for a usable product. What follows from that, though, is that we need to allow the producer enough profit to actually survive, so they’ll be there later on when we want *another* decent product. We need to be aware that every time we ask a company to spend even a second meeting our demands, that costs actual money. Someone has to pay that – and if the company wants to survive, it needs to pass that cost back to its customers – or forgo the expense entirely. Econ 101, guys!

So, great. Customers, make your demands. Be careful though – if you demand too much, you may find that no one is left to service your *next* demand …

Excellent!

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=190600070

Seems as though the CPSC is in cahoots with them (Dell).

Do you seriously think that Dell does not do this? They would be unique in corporate history if this were true. Dell has corporate sales teams, focus groups, and very tight measure for ROI on everything it does. Every offer it makes is tracked, every sale it makes is tracked, every call you make to support is tracked against your customer number. Dell has more hard facts about what its customers like and don’t like, all won through the most effective form of customer research: What you’ve actually bought.

If you seriously think that all Dell does is sit in its “ivory tower” ignoring what its customers want, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. It’s just that it’s more concerned with hard numbers than some squeaking blogs.

*Sigh*. You manage how you engage, which is EXACTLY what relationship management has always been about. You don’t just blindly engage with any and all customers.

Believe it or not, marketing has always been about engaging with customers, ensuring that you do things that are appropriate to the market you’re trying to reach. However, what you’re all seeming to miss is that the customer world is NOT flat, and sometimes the customers that make most noise are the ones that are least valuable. And – although this is a message the blogosphere might not like hearing – sometimes people making lots of noise on blogs are not all that influential.

Some customers don’t have enough money to make it worth my while chasing their dollars. Some are “lifestyle” buyers who would be particularly expensive to acquire. Some – the really loyal ones who buy the same products year on year – barely get listened to at all because it takes an earthquake for them to shift buying pattern.

Marketing may not be a science, but it IS a craft, and like all crafts theirs a lot of thought gone into how it works along the years.

“1. A computer maker that actually gave you “Gold” technical support;”

The problem is that such a maker would find it very difficult to generate sales, as its prices for machines would be 30-40% more than equivalents from box-shifters like Dell. Support, also, doesn’t get cheaper (per machine) the more machines you ship: if anything, it becomes more expensive. What’s more, you’d have a *lousy* rate of customer loyalty unless you built poor-quality machinest to begin with, because most customers machines don’t go wrong – and they’d be the most likely ones to ditch your overpriced boxes after three years of getting nothing extra for their money.

Jeff, I’d really suggest that you look into the history of the development of Microsoft Office if you want an example of a product where its design has been ceeded to customers (via focus groups). And look at Apple’s products if you want examples of how great products can be when a company chooses to completely ignore its customers.

You listen to existing customers because repeat business is cheaper to get than new business. But let them design the products? Not unless you want mediocrity.

“Absolutely right on who sets the value of a company: the marketplace.”

That’s a gross over simplification, Jeff. Think about it: a company that has small margins may well be highly valued by the marketplace, for its low prices. However, it may not be a valuable company, because it may have difficulty investing enough to ensure longer-term profit growth (and long-term profit growth is what impresses Wall Street and adds to a company’s value).

Value, Brett, is determined by making a good product and ensuring it gets good service and support. THIS determines how your product is perceived.

Make good products, and people will buy them, and your business will flourish. Make bad products, and they won’t, and your business will perish.

And there’s nothing communistic or socialistic about wanting to get good value for your money.

Well, considering that the average PC cost around $1,700 six years ago and now it costs closer to $1,000 I would strenously suggest that you do get “good value” for your money. (This isn’t even counting the fact that today’s machines are many times more usesful/powerful than their predecessors!)

You unwittingly illustrate my point. The vastly cheaper price and improved performance are taken for granted and the complaint is for better service. Sorry, smells a lot like an entitlement mentality to me.

And it’s plenty socialistic to inveigh against prices/products/companies from a platform of econo-ignorance.

Consumers don’t want to take over Dell or hang Michael from a lamppost; they just want what is rightfully theirs for the money they pay. I recently paid €1800 for a high-end Dell laptop. It can’t play games properly – even 5 year old games. In the end, Dell support fobbed me off with the line “this laptop is not suitable for gaming”, even though the Dell web site specifically markets it as such, and the laptop comes with a high-end graphics card whose only possible purpose is gaming. I’m a first – and you’ve guessed it – last time customer, and if Dell can use the internet to sell product, then I can use it to warn possible consumers about their lousy products and support. Fair’s fair.

P.

BTW who cares who Amanda sleeps with?

Amanda says, “Dell’s obligation to its customers ends with the conclusion of the transaction. Period.” Jonas Cord notes, “The conclusion of the transaction does not end until the end of the warranty…” Actually, it goes beyond that: It’s called “standing behind your product.” Some companies do, others don’t. As a customer, I can (and have) purchased from both types. A part of a supplier’s duty is make certain that I don’t make a deal with them believing that they’re a type “a” when they’re really a type “b.” (Business schools call this “managing customer expectations.” It’s not rocket science.)

CaptiousNut: “…entitlement mentality (for perfect customer service).” Baloney. Darn few people expect “perfect” service all the time, in fact most will put up with an amazing amount of fumbling. The real rage-provoker is repeated cases of ineffective “service,” coupled with perceived indifference to the customer’s plight: You failed to solve my problem, you failed to solve it again, and nobody in your organization seems to care. Do it often enough, and people will get the government involved (or maybe just bring in the trial lawyers): This is why states passed “lemon laws,” and what class action suits are all about.

“There’s going to be bugs and unforeseen problems… People that understand the business and understand the risk element of consumer purchases whine a heck of a lot less.” Then Dell shouldn’t be marketing computers as consumer products. I don’t have to understand the processed-foods business to buy a can of Campbell’s soup. If the customer has to “understand the business” or “understand the risk” to purchase a product, then the seller had better make sure the customer DOES, or there WILL be problems.

And again: “You can’t just assume that it’s possible or easy… to charge more money and deliver better customer support…” No, but if I was in Dell’s management I’d want to make damwell sure that it isn’t “possible or easy.” Because if I’ve overlooked something, sooner or later somebody else will come along and hand me my head.

It used to be that companies could smother customer dissatisfaction under a blanket of marketing. It’s ironic that, just as businesses were becoming bigger and more indifferent to their customers, the internet came along to make the “truth” as close as Googling “<company_name> +sucks.” This century’s winners will be the ones who understand the change.

And there’s nothing communistic or socialistic about wanting to get good value for your money.

I don’t care what Dell’s market cap is either, it’s hardly germane to the topic at hand.

Jeff could have made all of his points without talking about market cap also BUT his Nya Nya post was completely based on that.

People snickered when the terms “socialist” and “communist” show up in this thread, but this has devolved from a simple customer service complaint into a bricolage complaint with a life of its own.

By Brett’s own fact, Dell still grew “faster than the market as a whole”. They are selling more machines at lower prices despite the canaries. Wouldn’t this support my claim that the silent majority of customers value price over everything else?

John from Dell,

If you really are a concerned Dell rep, why don’t you have somebody call me back from Gold Technical Support (which I paid up for)? You offer Jeff help but why not me? Do you see anyone else defending Dell on Jarvis’ posts? Jarvis says he’s moved on, but his blog posts imply otherwise. Reaching out to Jeff strikes me as so Neville Chamberlain.

Heck I even recommended Michael Dell’s book above AND own stock in your company – not to mention I have bought 5 Dell PCs in the last seven years. (captiousnut at gmail.com)

Maybe Amanda and Nick are from the school of “Even bad PR is good PR.”

Captious, I’ll introduce some facts.

Here’s a bit about Dell marketshare:

“Like last quarter, Dell only grew a bit faster than the market as a whole. For Dell, that’s uncharacteristically slow.”

That’s for 4Q2005.

And for this year? This article is telling:

“The company recently acknowledged it will miss its quarterly revenue target for the second straight period. Dell blames a shortfall in its U.S. consumer business and its U.K. operations, but competition around the world and a changing market may also be dragging Dell back down to earth.”

And:

“Even though Dell cited slowdowns in its U.S and U.K. businesses as problems areas, Dell could also be missing out on accelerating growth in parts of the world where it does not dominate the market, analysts said.”

I don’t really care what Dell’s stock value is today, Captious. And I respect your comments… but Jeff’s right. Blog opinion is the canary in the coal mine. Given enough two thumbs down reviews, that brings down marketshare, as cited by the second article. And if marketshare dwindles, where’s the worth in the stock?

Cause and effect, kids.

Word to the wise: there is no relationship management. There is only relationship engagement. Big difference.

The good news is that Dell has begun to openly respond and engage its audience. Personally, I’m cheering for Dell to do this right. But it won’t happen by Amanda’s suggestion to shut down the blog. Get out of the ivory tower and meet your customers. Joseph in his sage comment earlier is exactly right. Spending three months in customer service and writing on the blog, as Jeff suggested, is engagement and educational and a hell of a good story.

There was no intention to overshadow you free speech in any way. The point is that if you keep crying after you’ve been given a bottle (or your “binky”), speaking from a mother’s perspective, it is a sure sign the baby needs changing or has colic. Trust me, in this heat, the incessant crying is painful for all of us.

- Amanda