CAD CAM EDM DRO - Yahoo Group Archive

Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly!

Posted by ballendo@y...
on 2001-11-11 18:25:58 UTC
Jon,

I think their "faxing" approach is consistent with their other
business practices...

First, Let's assume that they know what they are doing, and that
these are CHOICES, not just haphazard "whatevers" (which I DO believe
to be the case). So the first choice is to get GOOD customers, then
serve them WELL.

Microsoft has shown us there is power in making it EASY for your
customers to do what YOU want them to do; and making it HARD (or at
least, hard-ER) for them to do what you DO NOT want them to do.

For examples, just look at the "An MS product is not your default!
Would you like to make the MS product your default?" boxes which come
up when using Microsoft products. <important part follows> The mouse
arrow is DEFAULTED OVER the "YES" box!!!

So what does McMaster want us to do? Based on recent posts, they
would like us to use their website. (Makes sense, it "should" be
their least expensive "service" method). But they are also needing to
support and respect the "old ways" of customer interaction. Making it
hard to get a catalog (unless you meet THEIR definition of what a
GOOD customer is <or will be?>) will drive people to their website.

But they ALSO offer the option of "faxing" catalog pages (presumably
so as not to alienate everyone who doesn't have a computer). Does
this cost more for them? Probably. But it DOES allow them to receive
orders from and thereby establish a "relationship" with a customer
who may or may not be what they consider a "good" customer.

If the customer TRULY is good, my belief is that he/she will NOT be
needing pages "faxed" for very long...<G> If the customer is "bad",
the added effort/cost of the "faxing" part of the operation is offset
by the results of the "good" customers gained. Also, it is likely
that the "bad" customer will EITHER get tired of having to have pages
faxed to order; and will look elsewhere for "better" service (as we
have seen expressed in this thread) or will become a website user. Or
may, over time, get into the "good" category. Persistence pays?
(remember, this is M/C's definition of good we are concerned with,
NOT ours!)

Anyway, they have survived and grown for long enough that it may be a
little presumptious to think they are "getting it wrong". Far more
likely, IMO, is that they have a WELL-DEFINED customer, and "KNOW"
how to find him/her and keep 'em.

A recent movie (K-Pax, with Kevin Spacey) has an appropriate line:

"Some things are true whether you believe in them or not."

Hope this helps.

Ballendo

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Jon Elson <elson@p...> wrote:
<snip> I fully recognize the costs of small orders. But, they don't
>mind faxing
> out the catalog one page at a time for the small customer! That
doesn't
> make sense. If they want to eliminate small orders, they can set a
> minimum order amount, or to keep a good customer who just needs
> one part for an emergency, they could have a monthly minimum or
> something. But, they were willing to fax a page of the catalog to
a guy
> who wanted to buy a drill bit or something!
>
> Jon

Discussion Thread

Doug Harrison 2001-11-06 14:14:47 UTC [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] McMaster exposed CL 2001-11-06 15:12:13 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] McMaster exposed Randy Gordon-Gilmore 2001-11-06 15:42:45 UTC Re: McMaster exposed Chris L 2001-11-06 15:50:27 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Doug Harrison 2001-11-06 16:02:09 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] McMaster exposed Matthew King 2001-11-06 17:03:25 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed ballendo@y... 2001-11-06 17:22:59 UTC Re: McMaster exposed LEW BEST 2001-11-06 18:22:49 UTC RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed ccs@m... 2001-11-06 18:26:54 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Chris L 2001-11-06 19:47:23 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Jon Anderson 2001-11-06 20:50:18 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed LEW BEST 2001-11-06 21:03:23 UTC RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Chris L 2001-11-06 21:21:13 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Chris L 2001-11-06 21:25:33 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Darrell Daniels 2001-11-06 22:05:45 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Matthew King 2001-11-07 03:38:20 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Carol & Jerry Jankura 2001-11-07 05:38:45 UTC RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Eric Keller 2001-11-07 06:16:21 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed heemanshu B Shah 2001-11-07 06:27:19 UTC good new (may be) ccs@m... 2001-11-07 06:44:13 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed William Scalione 2001-11-07 16:30:25 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed LEW BEST 2001-11-07 17:15:36 UTC RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Matt Shaver 2001-11-07 17:46:25 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed LEW BEST 2001-11-07 18:37:12 UTC RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Jon Elson 2001-11-07 21:14:05 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed dspinnett@y... 2001-11-08 17:41:35 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Craig Chamberlin 2001-11-08 17:54:37 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! ballendo@y... 2001-11-08 17:57:56 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Jerry Kimberlin 2001-11-08 17:59:19 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! dspinnett@y... 2001-11-08 17:59:52 UTC Re McMaster comment... AND, Encoder suggestions? ccs@m... 2001-11-08 18:10:30 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Matthew King 2001-11-08 18:17:50 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Jerry Kimberlin 2001-11-08 18:20:02 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re McMaster comment... AND, Encoder suggestions? dspinnett@y... 2001-11-08 18:48:40 UTC Re: Encoder suggestions? dspinnett@y... 2001-11-08 19:01:05 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 Jerry Kimberlin 2001-11-08 19:42:52 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 Chris L 2001-11-08 19:59:52 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 ccs@m... 2001-11-08 20:05:27 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 Jerry Kimberlin 2001-11-08 20:33:59 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 Jerry Kimberlin 2001-11-08 20:39:33 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 Jon Elson 2001-11-08 22:56:33 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Matt Shaver 2001-11-09 05:11:33 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed Ray 2001-11-09 06:43:20 UTC Re: Re: Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 William Scalione 2001-11-09 07:09:53 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Encoder suggestions? Scott 2001-11-09 07:16:40 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed CL 2001-11-09 07:18:47 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: McMaster exposed - my last .02 Graham Hollis 2001-11-09 09:39:58 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! ron ginger 2001-11-10 18:28:15 UTC Re:McMaster exposed ballendo@y... 2001-11-11 18:25:58 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! ballendo@y... 2001-11-11 23:24:54 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Graham Hollis 2001-11-12 00:12:31 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Tom Murray 2001-11-12 02:00:08 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Eric Keller 2001-11-12 02:03:34 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! ballendo@y... 2001-11-12 02:28:36 UTC Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Graham Hollis 2001-11-12 09:40:16 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly! Jon Anderson 2001-11-12 10:03:57 UTC Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: McMaster exposed - Hardly!