Honda Car Forum

In article <Steve-6FFC91.03271516082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:

> > People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> > not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> > allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
> >
> > If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.
>
> Stupid analogy.
>
> Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay
> when you place the order, no surprises.
> If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price
> beforehand.

And this differs from the car repair situation....how? Did he ask ahead
of time how much this would cost, or did he just say "fix it" without
asking how much?

I know of no dealer who does not give an estimate at the time the work
order is written, a minimum it would be. Further, you the customer have
to initial that estimate.

The minimum would be $86, because all they did was look at the code and
clear it. You know that, you sign for it, THEN they do the work. This
is NO different than Starbucks.



> He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill,
> was surprised by the amount.

He got a quote. He just isn't telling us. Further, even if they didn't
offer a quote, why would he ask them to do the work without asking how
much? Either way, the onus is on him. If he wanted to act like Donald
Trump and just throw them the keys and say fix it, that's fine--but
don't bitch about what happens.

In article <rsWTc.40228$wM.10611@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate.
>
> No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get
> the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I
> only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the
> transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account.

And those lawyers would be laughing their asses off.

You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you
this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out
of prison?

In article <%%VTc.8607$PG2.1977283@twister.tampabay.rr.com> ,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before
> > and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do
> > it your way, and probably never see the guy again--in fact, read
> > postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to
> > me"--or they could do it by the book.
>
> I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than
> they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if
> you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you
> proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you
> would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be
> conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is
> anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.)

You aren't in the car dealership service business. It's an entirely
different beast.

In article <aNVTc.8604$PG2.1973525@twister.tampabay.rr.com> ,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Finally, Elmo, you have completely missed the point. It is
> short-sighted *economically* to treat people this way.

That has not been proven, as the dealership service department remains
in business.

On 8/16/2004 4:57 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <%%VTc.8607$PG2.1977283@twister.tampabay.rr.com> ,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before
>> > and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do
>> > it your way, and probably never see the guy again--in fact, read
>> > postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to
>> > me"--or they could do it by the book.
>>
>> I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than
>> they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if
>> you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you
>> proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you
>> would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be
>> conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is
>> anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.)
>
> You aren't in the car dealership service business. It's an entirely
> different beast.

No, I am not. I am a customer, however. I have been a customer for
many years, and I have talked to many other customers about this.
Again, I don't expect you to simply accept my word, but you might take
the time to ask the people you know how they feel about it, then maybe
some you don't know. Or not.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses
all." -- Sophocles

On 8/16/2004 4:56 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:


> In article <rsWTc.40228$wM.10611@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate.
>>
>> No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get
>> the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I
>> only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the
>> transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account.
>
> And those lawyers would be laughing their asses off.
>
> You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you
> this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out
> of prison?

That would depend on my agreement with the lawyers, and on whether they
thought they had done what they were paid to do. In most cases, I
should and I would. And yes, I realize this was intended to be a
rhetorical question.

In my personal experience, by the way, when you tell someone that they
called a specialist in and all they needed was to plug in the machine,
they are sheepish. They might perhaps laugh at themselves after I
leave. In this case, what they did was provide me with business,
whether they laughed or not. That was a hoped-for result, but not the
primary reason I did not charge them. That's more or less my point: it
turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business
practices. I do not mean to imply that charging for one's time
irrespective of results is dishonest. In this particular case, *I*
didn't feel that the customer had gleaned sufficient value to justify
it. How often have you heard a worker in a service shop say, "That's
just the cost, sir/ma'am; there's nothing *I* can do about it." This
was a case where there was something I could do about it. Surely, the
result you outlined could have obtained, with the customer laughing
because I had spent my time for no recompense from him. It didn't, but
it could have. Ah, well.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which
differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are
even incapable of forming such opinions." -- Albert Einstein

In article <_a2Uc.37555$4s6.29320@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you
> > this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out
> > of prison?
>
> That would depend on my agreement with the lawyers,

You didn't have a specific agreement with the car dealership. What did
you expect them to do in the absence of any prior agreement?

In article <_a2Uc.37555$4s6.29320@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> That's more or less my point: it
> turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business
> practices.

That's disingenuous; you're implying that the Honda dealership dealt in
dishonest business practice, which is most certainly not the case. They
provided an honest service, and did so under honest circumstances.

That you disagreed with it because it cost $86 out of your pocket, is
immaterial to that point.

On 8/16/2004 4:54 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <_a2Uc.37555$4s6.29320@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That's more or less my point: it
>> turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business
>> practices.
>
> That's disingenuous; you're implying that the Honda dealership dealt in
> dishonest business practice, which is most certainly not the case. They
> provided an honest service, and did so under honest circumstances.
>
> That you disagreed with it because it cost $86 out of your pocket, is
> immaterial to that point.

It wasn't my pocket, Elmo; that was the original poster.

Further, my implication was much broader than you presume. I mean to
imply that any business methods which do not provide fair value for
payment are dishonest. In the case at hand, the original poster might
well have decided that he received fair value for his $86, and this
discussion wouldn't be taking place. How does one decide fair value?
That's a good question, because it can be somewhat subjective. Here's a
clue: on several occasions you mentioned customers laughing their asses
off; if no one at the dealership thought it was 'pretty funny' that the
OP paid $86 for a bulb change, then it might have been a fair value.

Treating your customers as if you expect them to be cheats and thieves
*can* work, as you've pointed out. It generally does not, if the
customer base has other options. On the other hand, treating your
customer base as if they had some sense and self-esteem has always
worked. There are certainly individual customers who have neither, but
it's still a good bet.

Commerce works better, longer when both parties to an exchange of value
are satisfied that they have gotten a fair trade. You may subscribe to
P.T. Barnum's dictum, or you may feel that 'whatever the market will
bear' is proper; both of these aphorisms are based in truth. But
ultimately, a prosperous business relationship is based on respect.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons...
rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you
by heaven." -- Thomas Jefferson

In article <qEaUc.37887$4s6.14100@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I mean to
> imply that any business methods which do not provide fair value for
> payment are dishonest.

But *you* are appointing *yourself* as the arbiter of what's "fair
value".

Doesn't work that way. Just because *you* don't like something (like I
don't like the $5 cups of Starbucks coffee) doesn't mean it's bad and/or
that "something should be done about it" to eliminate it.

Case in point: a local Starbucks burned down several months ago. It
has sat there, untouched, all these months. No news stories came out
about this, but it turns out that in that same evening, 3 other
Starbucks restaurants across the nation--all of them standalone
buildings--were firebombed. This one nearby was also an arson, as it
turns out. The feds are investigating, and it appears that PETA and
another anti-business organization are being investigated in all this.

Was that right? No, it wasn't. But if you ask those involved, they'll
give you all sorts of reasons why Starbucks is wrong and therefore needs
dealt with. They'll try to rationalize it all to hell. But who are
they to be the arbiter of what's wrong?

And who are you to be the arbiter of what's wrong in a business dealing?
That you may not like it, and that you may not do business that way, is
fine--but that doesn't make those who do business a different way
"wrong" in any sense of the word.