Wesley Rolley on mon 20 aug 01
It seems to me that there is a lot of inconsistency here. If it is=20
proper to criticize Laguna for a bad batch of "B-Mix", then it should be=
=20
proper to criticize the organization that sponsor's any workshop. If yo=
u=20
can not criticize the workshop with names, then the comments, good or=20=
bad, about any product do not belong on the list. We all seemed to hold=
=20
that it was necessary to demand proper accountability from our clay=20
suppliers, then why not from our knowledge suppliers? Or to consider th=
e=20
good review, is it then proper to give a testimonial to Phil for his=20=
Bison Tools? And does the fact that you allow this, then by implication=
,=20
say that Dolan or Kemper are not as good?
Let's deal with reality.=20
I have read something of the philosophy of the founder of Matsuchita=20=
Electronics (Brand name Panasonic may be more familiar to some). He was=
=20
quoted as saying that the most valued customer is the one who complains,=
=20
because that is how you discover what is wrong with your product and wha=
t=20
needs to be done to improve it's value in the market. =20
If we agree that complaints are of value to the receiver, then the only =
question is to how they are the most effective. Obviously, a complaint =
directly to the provider (service or product) is the most effective. =20=
Often, this can be very informative for both. If that is effective and =
an understanding can be reached that satisfies the immediate need and=20=
prevents further problems, that should be the end of the problem. Only =
when that is not effective should it be necessary to broadcast the=20
information for all and then it is probably very proper to name names=20=
along with ALL other significant facts.=20
Earl Brunner on mon 20 aug 01
Well said!!
If this isn't what I've communicated, than this is what I mean!
Wesley Rolley wrote:
> It seems to me that there is a lot of inconsistency here. If it is
> proper to criticize Laguna for a bad batch of "B-Mix", then it should be
> proper to criticize the organization that sponsor's any workshop. If you
> can not criticize the workshop with names, then the comments, good or
> bad, about any product do not belong on the list. We all seemed to hold
> that it was necessary to demand proper accountability from our clay
> suppliers, then why not from our knowledge suppliers? Or to consider the
> good review, is it then proper to give a testimonial to Phil for his
> Bison Tools? And does the fact that you allow this, then by implication,
> say that Dolan or Kemper are not as good?
>
> Let's deal with reality.
>
> I have read something of the philosophy of the founder of Matsuchita
> Electronics (Brand name Panasonic may be more familiar to some). He was
> quoted as saying that the most valued customer is the one who complains,
> because that is how you discover what is wrong with your product and what
> needs to be done to improve it's value in the market.
>
> If we agree that complaints are of value to the receiver, then the only
> question is to how they are the most effective. Obviously, a complaint
> directly to the provider (service or product) is the most effective.
> Often, this can be very informative for both. If that is effective and
> an understanding can be reached that satisfies the immediate need and
> prevents further problems, that should be the end of the problem. Only
> when that is not effective should it be necessary to broadcast the
> information for all and then it is probably very proper to name names
> along with ALL other significant facts.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec/
bruec@anv.net
| |
|
