John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:

>My professional experience in that business is quite different. The
>cost of returns, even if scrapped, is very high, typically measured as
>the cost of quality -- you have to take them back to be sure retailers
>aren't cheating you. Most manfs will at least retest them, because the
>vast majority of returns (>90%) are fully functional, and can easily be
>recouped as refurbs. If scrapped, they are usually at least broken down
>for parts, or at least recycled for valuable materials.

That depends on the value of the product. I've been told that the
handling and testing costs far exceeds the value of the hardware and
that it is cheaper to toss the returns. One manufacturer breaks open
the boxes, yanks the boards, tosses the plastic, and runs the boards
back through the manufacturing and test lines.

Certainly, the higher value products will probably have some method of
refurbishing or remanufacturing the returns. In the case of routers,
my guess is only about 80% are functional. The failures are
predominantly flash upgrade failures and power supply induced damage
(reverse polarity, too much voltage, AC instead of DC, etc). However,
the bottom of the line products go straight into the trash.

>Again, not that simple. What goes around, comes around. Retailers hate
>returns, and tend to trash whatever product is giving them the most
>grief, which directly leads to lower sales. No good manf is going to
>knowingly take that risk.

True. However, the manufactories make it worse by substituting
inferior revisions for existing products with the same product name
and packaging. The WRT54G v5 is a great example. Retailers had
little problems with the WRT54G v1.1 thru v4 until the v5 arrived.
This substitution of products under the name and packaging is done
specifically so that the retailers will not have a good excuse to
return the unsellable "old" products en masse when replaced by a
better new product. However, with the WRT54G v5, the replacement
product was defective and trashed the long history of Linksys selling
a superior product. In marketing, this is commonly called "pissing in
the soup". The customer can't tell the difference until they try it.

>>>And they were right, whether they knew the exact reason or not.
>>
>>Sure. Perception is everything. Few can explain why two antennas are
>>better, but intelligence and technology doesn't count with decisions
>>based on perception.

>I didn't say that.

I just reworded your premise. If they don't know the exact reason
they're doing something, they're basing their decision on perception,
not logic, reason, research, or even opinion. It just "feels" like
the right product with two antennas, or something similar.

>With all due respect, I think you're being way too
>harsh and cynical.

True. I should be more diplomatic and respectful of the American
consumer. However, that's no fun. Whether I'm cynical or not has
little to do with the validity of my assertions.

>Knowing the exact reason is unimportant when the
>market mechanism is working, as it is here.

I spent a few years working in marketing solely on trying to
understand those reasons. It was difficult because many reasons were
apparently irrational and illogical. Those that paid me found it very
important to know those reasons.

>That's why branding is so
>important.

Brand loyalty is a great replacement for knowledgeable buying. It
takes way too much effort to educate the customer. It's much easier
to create a good impression for the company or to reassure the
customer that they bought the right product.

>Consumers will mercilessly desert a brand that betrays them,
>and loyally support safe brands even when a guru thinks some other
>product might be better, because it really isn't better, since it hasn't
>earned their market trust. What makes trust such a powerful force is
>that it's so hard to earn and so easy to lose.

Generally true but there are a few odd exceptions. Many people will
latch onto a brand and continue to buy the brand, even though they
have had a less than desirable experience with its products. The
problem is that people just don't want to admit that they made a
mistake. I can rattle off some examples, but I don't wanna get
diverted there.

>I've been doing this much of my professional life, and my experience is
>that these are just small factors. Change the color on a product that's
>lost market trust and it's still toast.

Really? DLink has a history of regularly repackaging existing
products. In all cases, it represented a demonstrable increase in
sales. It isn't always a case of finding the right color. It's often
just a packaging change in order to get a "fresh" look on the shelves.
Color and packaging may not make the product, but it certainly can
ruin a good product if improperly selected.

>>Criteria for commodity router selection (most important on top):
>> 1. It's cheap.
>> 2. A friend has one that works.
>> 3. I've heard of the manufacturer from somewhere.
>> 4. The box and color look cool.
>> 5. It weighs like something that should work.
>> 6. The literature is incomprehensible, so it must be powerful.
>> 7. Larger numbers are always better.
>> 108Mbits/sec instead of 54Mbits/sec.
>> Is 802.11z later than 802.11b? 5.7GHz is bigger than 2.4Ghz.
>> 8. The flashing lights sure look nice. What do they mean?
>> 9. This box has more acronyms than the other box.
>> 10. I read a review that said all I had to do is plug in the
>> wireless router and it's ready to go.
>>Optional:
>> 11. Jeff L said it sucked so I guess I'll try it.

>You left out some of the most important criteria:
>
> 0a. It's sold by my store.
> 0b. The salesperson in my store recommends it.

OK, I'll accept that. It's a fair assumption that the salesman will
push the products he has in stock, not something that the customer has
to buy elsewhere.

>You seem to have a very low opinion of people. I think that's both
>unwarranted and sad -- they may simply have different priorities than
>you and me, which to them are valid, no matter what we might think of
>them.

Try not to read too much between my lines. I have no specific opinion
of people in general. I try to understand them, accept what I find,
and sometime offer my observations for those that might profit from
the experience. Joe Sixpack certainly has different priorities.
However, I suspect when faced with unfamiliar territory, we all can
fall into one of the aforementioned observations, rather than doing
the proper research. I've make a few spectacular purchasing mistakes
so I'm also not immune.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558