Posted by Joe Baker on February 20, 2004 at 14:09:41:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Tuba Consumerism & Emails posted by Rick Denney on February 20, 2004 at 13:27:48:
Your statement suggests that because they bought a phone they should be prepared to use it for all possible business transactions.
I certainly intended no such suggestion. If I were to inquire -- as I have done -- what would be the cost to overhaul an instrument, and received a reply -- which I did receive -- explaining that, due to the variable nature of the job, it would be necessary to inspect the instrument before making such an estimate, that would be perfectly fine. If I were to write an email asking what would be the best method book for a beginning trombonist, and received an email suggesting I call to discuss the age and other musical knowledge of the player, again that would be fine. But if a company posted an email address, and didn't respond AT ALL -- yeah, I'd be ticked.
An Internet presence can do no more than the telephone.
Construing this statement as one relating to email, I must disagree. It has different advantages. A phone call is highly interactive, but limited to sounds. In an email, there is no interaction, but I can send -- and receive -- pictures, charts, even recordings. Speaking particularly of myself, *I* can also have a decent chance of making myself understood in email, whereas I often stammer badly on the phone, especially when I'm the guy who doesn't have the facts (as the programming expert, I haven't nearly as much trouble on the phone). BTW, how's this for irony: my programming field of expertise specialty is Telephony/Interactive Voice Response!
A business transaction is most effective for both parties when both parties approach it and leave it on an equal footing.
A sale always ends on an equal footing; but that is consistent with the seller being the "boss". When I buy something, I've paid a price I'm willing to pay, for an item the payer was willing to sell at that price. We equally agree to the sale. I am the boss only to the extent that the seller, having named a price, is unable to control my decision to buy or not buy. Put another way, my boss and I are also on an equal footing, since I am willing to do a job at a certain salary, one that he is willing to pay to get the job done. Neither of us could enter into the agreement without the other's consent, and either of us can terminate the agreement without the other's consent. We are on equal footing. But he is my boss.
high-end sellers are often smart to limit service to increase cachet and therefore demand
If limiting, rather than attracting, potential customers is your goal, failing to respond to email would be rather a good start!
Let me ask you a question: do you suppose that most people spend more discretionary money on "cachet" items or on commodities? Being DINKS (Dual Income, No KidS, for those unfamiliar with the phrase), you are, I think, able to afford more cachet purchases than most. Please don't think I begrudge you those purchases; we all make our choices to get where we are, and I'm content with my choices. But don't you think most people wind up with commodity tubas -- Kings, Miraphones, VMIs, Jupiters, Cervenys, Werils, etc.? Isn't that a pretty big sector of the tuba business? I just don't know of any of the vendors that post here who would want to lose their commodity tuba business.
Joe Baker, who thinks most sellers, even high-end boutiques, want to attract buyers.