There's another line of thought and practice.
Initially a product concept is produced, a document often derived by
Engineering, circulated past the Sales department and finally to the
financial boys in the company. The idea, and the target selling price along
with a projection of annual or lifetime sales are solidly massaged by all
the departments. Once accepted, the engineer(s) design the product with a
"target" cost in mind. Schedules must be met at all costs. Then, once
designed and operational, the prototype is handed off. The manufacturing
group gets its hands on the "new design" and try to make them in a
production, as opposed to a prototype, environment. They often do a "cost
down" study which often eliminates certain parts felt necessary by the
design group. And of course the procurement department says that certain
parts are too expensive, the lead times are too long and if parts x y and z
are replaced with parts aa and bb, then the cost will drop sharply and there
will never be a shortage of production parts. (If you believe this, I have
property located 10 miles east of Florida for sale.)
Now at this point the product doesn't resemble anything that was designed,
represents nothing that sales can sell and there is simply no market for the
product. As to the customer, well now Marketing steps in and says "Mr.
customer, we have this product that only cost X thousand dollars that will
cause blazing streaks across the daytime sky and you can buy it for a song."
Frankly, it's a wonder that any of these boxes work or meet the user
expectations. Finally, Service shudders at the thought of aa customer unit
appearing in their department.
All in all, it's a good solid business and design concept and we buy them by
the thousands. And are happy about it.
Oh, you need a manual to operate this unit? We'll have a printed version in
about 6 months. For now, sorry, the only thing available is a photo copy of
the engineers notes.
Now, for those that think the above is a HOOT!. Spend 15+ years in an
electronic manufacturing operation, one that carries the product from
concept, to engineering design, through mass production manufacturing and
finally to the end user and provide service support. IT'S NOT FUNNY!
73
Bob K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "j" <justo@maplenet.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Jupiter frequency jump?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Meahan" <wmeahan@wa8tzg.org>
>
>
> > .................
> >
> > Depends on volume, profit margins and how much TT makes in the other
> > divisions.
> >
> > I used to work for a major automotive company where folks would sell
> > their grandmother for a fraction of a cent savings on a screw. Looked at
> > in isolation, that appears pretty silly. However, when you use 40-50
> > million of those screws a year, that "fraction of a cent" adds up pretty
> > quickly. ................
>
> bill,
>
> thanks for your explanation and although i now can better understand "why"
a
> company cheapens their product, i still don't agree w/it. that is, i
agree
> w/your explanation, however it's the company's policy that i don't agree
> with.
>
> for instance, the above assumes that we, the customers, expect the company
> to foot the bill for improving the quality of their product. thus, when a
> company makes "x" amount of units/year, the costs to the company do add
up.
> however, if the company charges the consumer for this added quality, even
if
> the added charge = the company's cost (assuming that the cost isn't too
> high/unit), it would pay a much higher return in customer satisfaction
which
> affects repeat sales/name recognition/etc...
>
> for example, let's use tentec and their peg/jupiter. how many of you
owners
> feel that tentec's selling price for these units approaches the "too
> expensive" mark, such that if they charged any more you probably wouldn't
> have bought them? from what i've been hearing, it sounds like most feel
> that the current prices for these units are "very" reasonable and if
tentec
> had charged more, you probably would've still bought them. now, let's say
> that tentec takes the position that they want to improve these units, but
> profit margins are too slim based on the current selling prices. would
any
> of you current (or prospective) owners shy away from buying either of
these
> units if tentec raised the prices a couple of bucks (or even a $100) in
> order to cover their costs of providing better rf shielding?
>
> my point being, then is, that tentec could raise their prices for these
> units to cover their costs for adding proper rf shielding and we, the
> customers, would eagerly buy them even at the higher price. as a benefit,
> customers would be happier w/their units (ie, no one would be concerned
> about the rf problem) and tentec would gain an even better reputation than
> the fantastic one that they already have. seems like it would be a
win-win
> situation to me.
>
> 73,
> j
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
|