David Hendley on tue 20 apr 99
At 10:36 AM 4/19/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Not to sound too paranoid here but............... picture this scenario.
My thoughts exactly, John.
Also, my supplier incresed the price by 50 cents a box at the same time
they stopped separating the cones.
Here are the things I don't like about present day cones
(I know I'm an old grouch, but I've earned it):
1...The box. The old 2 piece boxes were very nice. I saved them and used
them to store treasures. The new boxes stink.
2...The foam. The vermiculite was great. You could add it in with
your clay to make a more open, faster drying body if you needed
cone packs in a hurry. No more.
3...Having to break them apart. I'm paying five bucks for 5 cents
worth of materials, machine-made, and then I have to spend another
5 bucks worth of my time away from production to separate them?
What a deal. Not to mention the couple that are broken every time.
Well, I've broken the Orton cone habit and happily make my
own. I still have some around to check each batch of my homemade
specials, but a box will last me 25 years. I figure mine cost me (in
time spent) about the same as store-bought. This is not counting the
years of tests to develop the recipes, but hey, that was a learning
experience, right?
So there, Mr. VP of Profits, ha-ha on you.
Your dedication to the bottom line has lost a you valued customer.
Bring back the nice box and break the dam things apart so they are
ready to use, and I will return to the fold.
BTW, Orton is supposed to be a non-profit company.
But then, so is my pottery business, not necessarily by choice.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com
P. S. I also think that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, staged
on a movie set in Hollywood.
At 10:36 AM 4/19/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Not to sound too paranoid here but............... picture this scenario.
>
>The Vice President of Profits (VPP) sits down at a management meeting and
>says to the assemblage:
>
>"As you all know, during the manufacture of cones when we part the pieces
>into individual cones we break a few. These broken cones of course can't
>be sold, and therefore represent a certain percentage of waste per every
>100 cones sucessfully shipped to the consumer. Annually I estimate the
>cost of these broken cones to be $XXXXX.XX, including lost product, wasted
>raw materials, waste disposal costs, and unproductive labor and overhead."
>
>
>"I propose a new way of looking at this problem. Instead of being waste,
>these broken cones represent an OPPORTUNITY."
>
>"If we stop separating the molded cones here in the factory, we can have
>the end user break the cones apart themselves, thereby saving that
>$XXXXX.XX in wastage we are currently incurring. When THEY break them.....
>it is then THIER cost, not ours. We shift the cost liability for this part
>of the production process to our end user. They then pass this cost along
>to their end users... the purchaser of their goods."
>
>"Additionally, our end user will then have to replace those cones that
>break because they NEED them or they wouldn't have bought them in the first
>place. So this shift in manufacturing tactic will also result in $XXXXX.XX
>in additional sales of large cones per year."
>
>"This revolutionary approach requires little investment in new equipment
>and very little change in plant operations. In fact, it is mostly
>eliminating some hand labor in the factory....... providing more reduced
>production costs."
>
>"Combined, I predict this simple reductive approach to future production
>methods will increase corporate profits by $XXXXX.XX annually."
>
>The Vice President of Customer Service (VPCS), fidgeting in his/her chair,
>now chimes up:
>
>"But won't this move be precieved by our customers as a negative thing?"
>
>The VPP responds:
>
>"To our main market, the industrial customers, cone usage is such an
>insignificant cost that they probably won't really notice this subtle
>change. There won't even be blip on the P+L. The secondary craft pottery
>market will certainly be a little more affected, but they probably will
>just accept it like they do bad batches of clay from their suppliers."
>
>"Tell you what..... I appreciate your concerns. Let's just try this for a
>year and see how many complaints we get. If those complaints are
>significant enough we can always go back to the old way. But I think it
>will work with little resistance."
>
>The President then speaks and all are quietly attentive:
>
>"I like it. Now, lets move on to that other matter............... ... . .
>. . . . ."
>
>
>Food for thought.
>
>Best,
>
>.......................john
>
>John Baymore
>River Bend Pottery
>22 Riverbend Way
>Wilton, NH 03086 USA
>
>603-654-2752
>JBaymore@Compuserve.com
>
| |
|
