Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««123»»

Look Beyond the First Result Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:52 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:58 AM
Points: 6, Visits: 26
I'm fully aware of the world I'm living in, thank you.

What disgusts me is the way that corporate America gets away with this deception, and tries to thwart any attempt to bring ethical behavior into their business dealings. Marching under the banner of "Less regulation is good for America" they are trying to remove or restrict any oversight on their activities.

If the financial crisis of the last four years hasn't taught us anything, it should have taught us that 'laissez-faire' is a recipe for disaster, that corporations will NOT self-regulate, and we cannot (and should not) trust them to act in our interest as consumers.

Take this simple test. Try to think of the last time a corporation actually did something for you that didn't involve extracting more money from your wallet. OK, time's up! You couldn't think of anything, could you? More than likely, you could find plenty of examples of where they either upped your bill without giving you anything, or kept your bill the same and reduced your service. Either way, they lined their pockets at your expense.

If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.
Post #1424122
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:14 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:44 PM
Points: 379, Visits: 907
I say that honest is the only requirement. If they say they'll charge Mac customers more I'm fine with that, just be honest. If I am buying mortgage backed securities be honest with the quality. Just be honest. As for Orbitz you could still get the lower priced hotels you just had to select the sort or move to the next page.
Post #1424136
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:22 AM
Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:06 AM
Points: 733, Visits: 1,869
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...


But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).

It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.


...

-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
Post #1424140
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:46 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, March 10, 2014 5:44 PM
Points: 2,225, Visits: 1,258
jay-h (2/26/2013)
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...


But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).

It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.


And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well.

Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous and has a very high probability of failure. This is why corporate america is trying to gather as much information about you as possible. They are mining everything they can get their bots and spiders on. They want to develop a statistical trend to bend the probabilities in their favor. Thus they collect everything, analyze it all, and then make a "best guess" estimate as to what to show you and how to present it. This is based on the idea that you will continue to make similar decisions based on the decisions of the past. And if the statistical base is broad enough then the assumptions have a much higher probability of success.

Is it moral and legal? Yes it is. If you are a business why would you want to waste time and monies showing customers as the first options, things they have never shown an interest in buying. And as a customer you want to get to what you want as quickly as possible and not have some one trying to sell you something you do not want or need.

Lastly, the willingness to pay a higher price for quality and cost of an item may not be related to the type of machine at all. Consider the Apple owner who lost their job 16 months back and is still looking or has had to compromise on a much lower paying job. To assume that they would be willing to pay for the higher priced item in this case would be incorrect. They might want to but they cannot do it. To have the things they would like to have and can no longer afford put in their face each time they come to a site might be quite depressing, and in fact depress your sales.

M.


Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
Post #1424156
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:51 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:05 PM
Points: 1,334, Visits: 3,068
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.


I hear ya David. However, I tend to choose my fights carefully. I don't choose fights I know I have no chance of winning or at least breaking even at. That's just good common sense IMHO. Our current economic system is corrupt from the inside out and if Washington can't (or won't) change it then what do you think you chances are? For all we know our leaders are probably in on it anyway and taking kick backs from it. David, please remember this bottom line in life:
"Most of the mess that is called history comes about because kings and presidents cannot be satisfied with a nice chicken and a good loaf of bread.” When morality comes up against greed, greed tends to usually win out. Just the way it is my friend.


"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ..."
Post #1424159
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:42 PM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 6:15 AM
Points: 934, Visits: 1,526
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I'm fully aware of the world I'm living in, thank you.

What disgusts me is the way that corporate America gets away with this deception, and tries to thwart any attempt to bring ethical behavior into their business dealings. Marching under the banner of "Less regulation is good for America" they are trying to remove or restrict any oversight on their activities.

If the financial crisis of the last four years hasn't taught us anything, it should have taught us that 'laissez-faire' is a recipe for disaster, that corporations will NOT self-regulate, and we cannot (and should not) trust them to act in our interest as consumers.

Take this simple test. Try to think of the last time a corporation actually did something for you that didn't involve extracting more money from your wallet. OK, time's up! You couldn't think of anything, could you? More than likely, you could find plenty of examples of where they either upped your bill without giving you anything, or kept your bill the same and reduced your service. Either way, they lined their pockets at your expense.

If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.


I'll take your challenge and respond with the Grocery Store (NOT a small town store, this is a regional/national chain). Yep, last night I mentioned to the guy at the check out that I thought we had forgotten a bag of groceries the previous week that included a simple plug-in air freshener, but I really wasn't sure. He gave me one for free.

The Free Market is not what you've defined at all. The Free Market is simply that providers can bring goods or services to market for prices that they decide to charge. The other side of the equation is that you can either choose to buy or not buy based on the price and the perceived quality of said good or service. That's all the Free Market is.

Take a short test yourself, when was the last time that something happened on Wall Street or to a store that the first response of people in government was NOT "We need more government!" (aka "We need more regulations!")... bingo, NEVER, it's not about fixing a problem, it's about adding more to government JUST to have an excuse to add more to government.
Post #1424221
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:48 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:58 AM
Points: 6, Visits: 26
I think a free air freshener hardly qualifies as a sterling example of corporate caring. I stand by my original statement. Corporations consider you as a source of revenue...nothing more.

And as to the other opinions you stated, all I can say is that if corporate America acted responsibly, we wouldn't need the regulations we have. We can't trust them to police themselves.

And I don't subscribe to your interpretation of recent history as a power grab for government. It looks as if some media outlet convinced you that the Feds were going to take over the auto industry and the banks. If that were true, why aren't they apologizing now that the Feds sold their GM stock at a profit and sold their AIG stock at a profit. They can't do it, because it refutes their false narrative that everything government does is bad, and corporate America can do no wrong.

What a fiction THAT is...
Post #1424255
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:29 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 1:52 PM
Points: 266, Visits: 919
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).

It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.


And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well.

M.


The opposite can also be true. I've had salesmen ignore me because they assumed they weren't going to make a sale at times when I was ready to spend money.

My mom had a saleswoman explain to her that something was really expensive. My mom wasn't stupid. She knew the price of the item and what she could afford to spend.

I've also had salesman lose a sale because they were so determined to sell me what would make the most commission when I was ready to buy something else. So, they ended up making no commission at all.
Post #1424263
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:56 AM


SSCarpal Tunnel

SSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:20 AM
Points: 4,862, Visits: 2,243
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...


But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).

It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.


<snip />Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous <snip />


Which statistic are you assuming is applicable here?


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1424401
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:32 AM


SSCarpal Tunnel

SSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:20 AM
Points: 4,862, Visits: 2,243
marcia.j.wilson (2/26/2013)
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).

It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.


And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well.

M.


The opposite can also be true. I've had salesmen ignore me because they assumed they weren't going to make a sale at times when I was ready to spend money.

My mom had a saleswoman explain to her that something was really expensive. My mom wasn't stupid. She knew the price of the item and what she could afford to spend.

I've also had salesman lose a sale because they were so determined to sell me what would make the most commission when I was ready to buy something else. So, they ended up making no commission at all.


In the summer between school and college (in England so I was 16) I worked for an electrical retailer. I sold TVs, Hi-Fis, washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc. I worked with a full time career (at least at that point) sales team. I lived in a town with an extremely high proportion of retired people and given the time (1987) a lot of them were not technically competent which was more down to lack of experience with and lack of interest of technology in their lives than their potential to understand. Working what days I could get, which was 2-4 per week, I still outsold all my peer salespeople even when one started to put through half my stuff through the till as their boyfriend's sales. I am not bragging as it is just a simple and, importantly, salient fact proven by the sales sheets.

The reason why I tell this story is to explain why I performed better. Instead of trying to fleece the elderly with expensive products with features that they didn't need I suggested that they bought quality items that suited their needs. This was often, but not always, mid-ranged items with a mid-ranged price tag. This meant less commission for me and a lower sales figure than was actually realisable. On that one sale. As I wrote it that way, I highlighted what you no doubt worked out anyway: that I did more sales by selling more items. How did I achieve this? Repeat sales. If someone was sold a washing machine they needed as opposed to the one they didn't it only makes sense for them to return to the same place when they needed a vacuum cleaner, for example. Why? Trust!!!

This was emphasised not only by returning customers but by recommendations. I even caught a previous customer peeking through the window and pointing me out. Another sale ensued. I'm not even very good at sales.

In relation to the editorial, the question is whether Orbitz has lost the trust of their potential consumers. Only time will tell.


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1424409
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««123»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse