I never take out extended warranties as I have found if it lasts 12 months, it will probably carry on working for several years. We have tended to replace equipment because there is something better, or when it breaks down. In the case of our first washing machine, a Creeda, after 15-years. However, the main reason I don't take out extended warranties is because I can generally repair the equipment quicker and cheaper myself.
I know that most people are afraid to take the back off a TV – “Danger” stickers reinforce the fear. “No user serviceable parts” are a challenge for me. Unplugged from the mains (and antenna) and there is little that you can do wrong. Taking out a few screws and having a look, it wont bite and you can always simply put it back. Most electrical and electronic devices have plug in modules these days, maybe a retaining screw or two. The point being, there are no special tools required in most cases to repair stuff.
I come from a time when, as a teenage, I understood 90% to 100% of the technology in my home. That applied to the 12” black and white TV and the valve radio. It also applied to “technologies” of the plumbing, woodwork and gas. In my adult life I have kept up this understanding. I am always interested to find out how things work, from businesses to people to computers and more.
So why is this important? People block up ventilation holes to stop drafts and kill themselves in their ignorance, or spill hot coffee and are surprised that it is hot or expect that cruise control will steer the camper van down the road while they go and make a cup of coffee in the back. Clearly most people are not that stupid and survive without thinking too deeply about how anything works, until it goes wrong. Even then they use their disposable income to call some “skilled” person in to put it right.
Anyway I digress…having always had a go at repairing stuff when a Morphy Richards (retro looking) toaster packed up on me a few years ago I looked in the top and could see that one of the heating elements had a gap in it. It had blown. The special anti-tamper screws were no obstacle, simple a minor challenge. Having removed the damaged element (6-screws and a couple of push on connecter like those on the back of you car head light – not rocket science) and called Morphy Richards to order a replacement. “Oh no we don’t have spare parts for those…they are not meant to be serviced!” “Throw it away and send us a copy of your receipt and we’ll send you a replacement.”
What a completely wasteful process. Green wasn’t such a big issue but it angered me that the only practical reasons why it was not serviceable where the anti-taper screws and the lack of basic expendable components – more for the land fill!
So back to recent events! It always seems that just after Christmas and all that expense, January turns into the month where a whole load of unexpected problems and outlay turn up. Amongst these this year the washing machine blew a fuse. I replaced the fuse and the machine responded by flashing 4-times pausing the repeating the 4 flashes in a continuous loop. A quick look in the user manual tells me that this means the door is not shut – clearly it is, so there has to be something else. Following the logic?
A washing machine is clearly a bit more complicated than a toaster, so I look around on the internet for a service manual. Hopefully a chink of light to help me know what I am doing. I’ll have a go at anything but being informed action improves the chance of success. I contact Zanussi and Electrolux and their service agents but none will supply me with a service manual – “They are trade only… You could hurt yourself!” “We would be liable”
I hate the woman that bought the coffee from McDonalds spilt it and then successfully sued because it didn’t have a warning on it that it was hot. I recently heard about a woman that successfully sued because there was no warning about the cruse control on her camper van. She had put the cruise control on and gone into the back to make some coffee. Apparently she had not realised that she still had to steer. These people fuck it up for the rest of us big time.
Anyway being sane and with some grey cells in working order I want to work on MY property. They sold me the machine. I own it. If I want to hit it with a hammer or take it for a swim (is there a warning about that?) or play with it, that is up to me. Why won’t they give me the information to make it as safe as possible? (Please use a life jacket when going for a swim with your washing machine) But oh no “we’ll send a service engineer around” £50, which I decline. “But what will you do?” “I’ll take it apart without the service manual.” “That’s dangerous and we don’t advise that.” “It’s more dangerous because you won’t sell me a manual and I understand why you don’t advise it. It’s because you want to charge me £50.”
Now you may think this reckless but in a washing machine there are a very limited number of components. The most common problems include the motor, the heating element and the pump.
Eventually I find a site offering a generic washing machine and dishwasher manual http://www.2ndwave.co.uk/manual.html . This is not the most up to date manual but the basic are right on, and it will at least show you how to get into the thing.
Eventually I discover that the programmer has been blown by a short circuit in the interlocking door catch. Unfortunately I don’t discover this until I’ve spent £30 and waited 3 days for the new door lock to turn up (lots of places that will sell you the parts – including Zanussi’s service agent – but no manual! “It’s OK to blow yourself up as long as we didn’t give you any help in avoiding it!”).
The programmer will cost £175 to £189 including VAT + delivery. The act of replacing it is easy a couple of clips and three or four idiot proof multi-way plugs – I only have to take two screws out and slide the top off. But the cost presents me with a dilemma. If I spend £175+ and having replaced it, it goes bang, I’m £170+ down the drain.
If I get someone to repair it, they will want to charge their labour. They will also want at least some cover for the risk that it goes bang on them. So looking at around £250 – new machine £278. So in the dawn of a green age I throw what is otherwise a perfect machine away.
And that, you may say, is that. But what angers me is that this 4-year old machine looks brand new. The inside isn’t even dusty. The £170 for the programme is ridiculous. A quick search of the internet and you can get a simple laptop (with far more processing power) for less. An observational note to Zanussi is pending a response and I have to move on… the washing is piling up.
Before I end I just want to go back to the beginning… if I’d have taken out an extended warranty for an additional 3-years it would have cost me £185 and have run out in November last year..
So when the good, the great and the politicians tell me to be green they are taking to the converted, at the bottom of the chain. Maybe a chat with the top of the chain about their designs would be worth it for the sake of the planet!
Thus endeth the rant.
Tuesday 27 January 2009
Friday 16 January 2009
Poor performance (by the company)
As the need to reduce cost looks at cutting staff companies look at individuals’ performance and specifically poor performance as a way of managing people out of the business.
This method avoids making announcements to the stock market about compulsory redundancy, that could have a negative affect on the share price or reveal a weakness in the longer term success/strategy. However it isn't aways the individuals fault that they are in a position that appears like they have become poor performers.
This is how it works: -
1 Someone that can talk a good job and sell an idea turns up making promises about an investment, product launch, acquisition, strategy or other course of action.
2. Lets say it is to acquire another company. The benefits will be that it compliments our existing services, customers, markets, it deliver quick growth and new opportunities new revenues. It moves us up the value chain, makes us less of a commodity and gives us a competitive advantage. - The list of MBA speak that never seems to get pinned down is seeming endless.
3 They sell it big. Large numbers mesmerise the "powers that be", because they have targets of their own to grow revenue and their bonus depends on it. They don’t really understand the proposition, can’t be bothered with the detail and do not get the claims validated. In the good times they ride on the fact that they will make money anyway.
4 The person that originally talked the job, will now seems to have three or four advocates from different disciplines that don’t understand the proposition but can add some verbiage that seem to provide independent validate the proposition. Of course they are not independent as they seek to carve some form of personal gain.
5 The project is approved, the plan is put in place and the contract is negotiated. The implementation may be done by the same people or handed to someone else. Ongoing operation will normally be handed to someone else.
6 Anyone that questions the proposition or the contract will be told that “you just don’t get it”. The objectors will not necessarily want to tell the King (their bosses) that he is naked. Those that do are often dismissed as just being negative and maybe even jealous.
7 Based on the promises made the people that are brought in to deliver and run the ongoing business are given targets. The forecast was unreal and the targets are therefore are unattainable.
8 The original group of advocates will often have reformed, based on the success of their pervious exploits (there ability to see the future and develop new business), in another department, division or company.
9 Those left behind unable to meet the targets are labelled “poor performers” and managed out of the company.
10 Everyone is left with the feeling that it was a good idea but we just couldn’t make it work…
11 No boady ever seems to want to learn, pull out the original case, see where it was wrong or where it went wrong and take steps to avoid the same pitfalls so we end up back at square (point) 1
In world of an entrepreneur failure is felt first hand. Even if the lesson is not learned the opportunity is there to learn. Sure some entrepreneurs bury their head in the sand, but for corporate managers to do this is negligent. Most entrepreneurs fail several times before they eventually get it right.
In large organisations, the intra-preneur has moved on before their mistakes come to light. This leaves the organisation worse, rather than better off. It also leave otherwise competent staff carrying the can.
Potentially the company manages out these “poor performers” leaving the real culprits behind. Do this across a large organisation and it gradually increases the likelihood of failure.
Managing out poor performers is one thing but recruiting people simply based on who they worked for in the past, what they claim to have done and be able to do, is about as much use as the US visa waving form asking if you are a drug dealer on not… I wonder how many drug dealers have answered yes?
Often capabilities and skills within the company are ignored. The opportunity to develop people, motivate them, for the company to get loyalty as a driver, as well as personal gain are lost.
Is that what happened in the banking world – is the premise that a company has to be geared to be running efficiently sound like the bollocks it clearly was. If anyone remembers the “Trouble Shooter” programme on BBC and the Morgan car factory programme it seems some how justice that they seem managing the credit crises with their philosophy far more easier than Ford or GM et al with their superior financial advisors.
This method avoids making announcements to the stock market about compulsory redundancy, that could have a negative affect on the share price or reveal a weakness in the longer term success/strategy. However it isn't aways the individuals fault that they are in a position that appears like they have become poor performers.
This is how it works: -
1 Someone that can talk a good job and sell an idea turns up making promises about an investment, product launch, acquisition, strategy or other course of action.
2. Lets say it is to acquire another company. The benefits will be that it compliments our existing services, customers, markets, it deliver quick growth and new opportunities new revenues. It moves us up the value chain, makes us less of a commodity and gives us a competitive advantage. - The list of MBA speak that never seems to get pinned down is seeming endless.
3 They sell it big. Large numbers mesmerise the "powers that be", because they have targets of their own to grow revenue and their bonus depends on it. They don’t really understand the proposition, can’t be bothered with the detail and do not get the claims validated. In the good times they ride on the fact that they will make money anyway.
4 The person that originally talked the job, will now seems to have three or four advocates from different disciplines that don’t understand the proposition but can add some verbiage that seem to provide independent validate the proposition. Of course they are not independent as they seek to carve some form of personal gain.
5 The project is approved, the plan is put in place and the contract is negotiated. The implementation may be done by the same people or handed to someone else. Ongoing operation will normally be handed to someone else.
6 Anyone that questions the proposition or the contract will be told that “you just don’t get it”. The objectors will not necessarily want to tell the King (their bosses) that he is naked. Those that do are often dismissed as just being negative and maybe even jealous.
7 Based on the promises made the people that are brought in to deliver and run the ongoing business are given targets. The forecast was unreal and the targets are therefore are unattainable.
8 The original group of advocates will often have reformed, based on the success of their pervious exploits (there ability to see the future and develop new business), in another department, division or company.
9 Those left behind unable to meet the targets are labelled “poor performers” and managed out of the company.
10 Everyone is left with the feeling that it was a good idea but we just couldn’t make it work…
11 No boady ever seems to want to learn, pull out the original case, see where it was wrong or where it went wrong and take steps to avoid the same pitfalls so we end up back at square (point) 1
In world of an entrepreneur failure is felt first hand. Even if the lesson is not learned the opportunity is there to learn. Sure some entrepreneurs bury their head in the sand, but for corporate managers to do this is negligent. Most entrepreneurs fail several times before they eventually get it right.
In large organisations, the intra-preneur has moved on before their mistakes come to light. This leaves the organisation worse, rather than better off. It also leave otherwise competent staff carrying the can.
Potentially the company manages out these “poor performers” leaving the real culprits behind. Do this across a large organisation and it gradually increases the likelihood of failure.
Managing out poor performers is one thing but recruiting people simply based on who they worked for in the past, what they claim to have done and be able to do, is about as much use as the US visa waving form asking if you are a drug dealer on not… I wonder how many drug dealers have answered yes?
Often capabilities and skills within the company are ignored. The opportunity to develop people, motivate them, for the company to get loyalty as a driver, as well as personal gain are lost.
Is that what happened in the banking world – is the premise that a company has to be geared to be running efficiently sound like the bollocks it clearly was. If anyone remembers the “Trouble Shooter” programme on BBC and the Morgan car factory programme it seems some how justice that they seem managing the credit crises with their philosophy far more easier than Ford or GM et al with their superior financial advisors.
Monday 12 January 2009
TV is not dead but it could be terminal
In the beginning the broadcasting was limited to geographical regions due to largely to technical limits of transmitter height, transmitter power, radio frequency propagation and the curvature of the earth.
The technology and its limits lent itself to regional and national programmes. This in turn fitted nicely with cultural boundaries, language and advertising brands. TV programme rights followed suit and were sold on geographical (usually national) basis.
A French person can watch free to air (FTA) French programming in France (with or without adverts) but if they come to the UK they can not. The broadcasting technology didn’t allow it. When satellite came along this was not the case – hence the preverlance of BSkyB systems in Spain where UK expatriates watch UK TV, even though this is not allowed by BSkyB.
What is the impact of this – on the programming, none. On the advertising maybe it is less effective but when Ford advertises a car or there’s an advert for Cif, or Snickers, these are international brands and the value is unaffected. The losers are those advertisers that don’t provide their product in Spain. You could also argue that the local TV advertisers are also losing out, but do the expat’ community speak Spanish or watch Spanish TV?
If you now travelled from Spain to say Turkey, or further away from the UK, you would eventually find that the satellite footprint ended and even a very large dish would not pull in a signal.
The internet now bypasses the limitations of satellite in not being distant limited. SlingBox and others have utilised this to enable consumers temporarily away from home to watch TV from home. Losers? The advertisers aren’t losing, because they are not trying to get an impulse buy, the “impact” of the advert will have an effect when you return home. The rights owners haven’t lost out as the consumer has only temporarily shifted location.
As internet TV becomes more prevalent the model that grew out of the technological limitations becomes increasingly threatened. As geo-blocking artificially tries to limit access it throws down a gauntlet for those that see the Internet as a free and open medium. However, on the internet the role of the broadcaster is missing.
Broadcasters provide a useful role not just in what they commission (by far the most important role), not the scheduling of content, but the role of content discovery that the consumer needs. From a consumer’s perspective broadcasters aggregate content that would otherwise require a trial and error search on the Internet. If the broadcasters’ brand value is clear such as Discovery, History, MTV or Disney etc the consumer knows what content to expect. On more general channels the experience can be a bit more hit and miss.
The role of discovery can be fulfilled by social web sites, community blogs etc but how many do I need to join and how often do I have to check them. Broadcasters could develop a strategy to be the online content discovery mechanism that would naturally flow into the content delivery mechanism and thereafter the advertising channel. Since the content is potentially distributed globally they become global brands and since local adverts and adverts based on personal profiles are possible the advertisers win too. The online portal becomes a pull through to the traditional broadcast, where higher quality and differentiated services such as 3D can be delivered.
I don’t know what the future of the internet hold for the broadcasters but the old model is not going to survive.
The technology and its limits lent itself to regional and national programmes. This in turn fitted nicely with cultural boundaries, language and advertising brands. TV programme rights followed suit and were sold on geographical (usually national) basis.
A French person can watch free to air (FTA) French programming in France (with or without adverts) but if they come to the UK they can not. The broadcasting technology didn’t allow it. When satellite came along this was not the case – hence the preverlance of BSkyB systems in Spain where UK expatriates watch UK TV, even though this is not allowed by BSkyB.
What is the impact of this – on the programming, none. On the advertising maybe it is less effective but when Ford advertises a car or there’s an advert for Cif, or Snickers, these are international brands and the value is unaffected. The losers are those advertisers that don’t provide their product in Spain. You could also argue that the local TV advertisers are also losing out, but do the expat’ community speak Spanish or watch Spanish TV?
If you now travelled from Spain to say Turkey, or further away from the UK, you would eventually find that the satellite footprint ended and even a very large dish would not pull in a signal.
The internet now bypasses the limitations of satellite in not being distant limited. SlingBox and others have utilised this to enable consumers temporarily away from home to watch TV from home. Losers? The advertisers aren’t losing, because they are not trying to get an impulse buy, the “impact” of the advert will have an effect when you return home. The rights owners haven’t lost out as the consumer has only temporarily shifted location.
As internet TV becomes more prevalent the model that grew out of the technological limitations becomes increasingly threatened. As geo-blocking artificially tries to limit access it throws down a gauntlet for those that see the Internet as a free and open medium. However, on the internet the role of the broadcaster is missing.
Broadcasters provide a useful role not just in what they commission (by far the most important role), not the scheduling of content, but the role of content discovery that the consumer needs. From a consumer’s perspective broadcasters aggregate content that would otherwise require a trial and error search on the Internet. If the broadcasters’ brand value is clear such as Discovery, History, MTV or Disney etc the consumer knows what content to expect. On more general channels the experience can be a bit more hit and miss.
The role of discovery can be fulfilled by social web sites, community blogs etc but how many do I need to join and how often do I have to check them. Broadcasters could develop a strategy to be the online content discovery mechanism that would naturally flow into the content delivery mechanism and thereafter the advertising channel. Since the content is potentially distributed globally they become global brands and since local adverts and adverts based on personal profiles are possible the advertisers win too. The online portal becomes a pull through to the traditional broadcast, where higher quality and differentiated services such as 3D can be delivered.
I don’t know what the future of the internet hold for the broadcasters but the old model is not going to survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)