For years a Bucket of Fries was a secret menu item. The buckets were sent to McDonald's restaurants and kept in supply for customers that wanted them. After awhile more and more people were ordering the secret menu item wishing they could do it with drinks they started reaching out to the company and asking for it.
Supersize was born. The Bucket became the normal fry case shape though maintaining it's size and a larger drink was introduced.
Years later the same consumers reached out and asked the company to discontinue it and sales started dropping off at the same time so they did so.
Great the system works. Except most of the consumers that succeeded in getting what they wanted both times are still convinced the company never listens to them and will never give them what they want.
Now if you hear someone criticize a company for not doing things how many people want them to you are supposed to agree that the company which won't make money if it kills off it's fan base is really evil and just doesn't care about making money while somehow still making money? Yeah it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I am not talking companies that make things you have to have I am talking purely luxury items where you can absolutely vote with your dollar and force the company to change. But only if they know what you want to change.
Someone told me recently that companies should just merely look at the social media and critiques and use that to make their decision. Ignoring two things with this stance.
1) If there are two equally loud groups and both want opposing or different things that can only be afforded one at a time how is the company to decide which is the profitable one.
2) If all of the very loud voices are saying "we don't like (X)" but sales show that a group larger than that group bought the thing that will be seen as "well most people like it so keep it"
I say that yes the company should pay attention to what is selling, what isn't and try to account for that.
But it can't be a one way street. If a person is completely unwilling to tell the company, "Here's proof I buy your product and here's my problem with it." then they essentially become a petulant child who will tell you they don't want the peas but not tell you it' just because the peas and carrots are touching.
The other part of this that bothers me is the Convenient Amnesia of "Well where di you get the idea we wanted that"
"Uhm from you three years ago you kept bitching you wanted (x) so we worked to improve (X) now that we have instead of saying "great now can you do (Y)" You're getting all pissed and crying "Why do you keep giving me X we don't want X give us Y you idiots"
That bothers me it's like at least acknowledge that you wanted it instead of blaming them for "forcing" something on you and being all mad.
So thoughts should the company be the only ones responsible for figuring out what a customer wants or should both sides communicate?
Supersize was born. The Bucket became the normal fry case shape though maintaining it's size and a larger drink was introduced.
Years later the same consumers reached out and asked the company to discontinue it and sales started dropping off at the same time so they did so.
Great the system works. Except most of the consumers that succeeded in getting what they wanted both times are still convinced the company never listens to them and will never give them what they want.
Now if you hear someone criticize a company for not doing things how many people want them to you are supposed to agree that the company which won't make money if it kills off it's fan base is really evil and just doesn't care about making money while somehow still making money? Yeah it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I am not talking companies that make things you have to have I am talking purely luxury items where you can absolutely vote with your dollar and force the company to change. But only if they know what you want to change.
Someone told me recently that companies should just merely look at the social media and critiques and use that to make their decision. Ignoring two things with this stance.
1) If there are two equally loud groups and both want opposing or different things that can only be afforded one at a time how is the company to decide which is the profitable one.
2) If all of the very loud voices are saying "we don't like (X)" but sales show that a group larger than that group bought the thing that will be seen as "well most people like it so keep it"
I say that yes the company should pay attention to what is selling, what isn't and try to account for that.
But it can't be a one way street. If a person is completely unwilling to tell the company, "Here's proof I buy your product and here's my problem with it." then they essentially become a petulant child who will tell you they don't want the peas but not tell you it' just because the peas and carrots are touching.
The other part of this that bothers me is the Convenient Amnesia of "Well where di you get the idea we wanted that"
"Uhm from you three years ago you kept bitching you wanted (x) so we worked to improve (X) now that we have instead of saying "great now can you do (Y)" You're getting all pissed and crying "Why do you keep giving me X we don't want X give us Y you idiots"
That bothers me it's like at least acknowledge that you wanted it instead of blaming them for "forcing" something on you and being all mad.
So thoughts should the company be the only ones responsible for figuring out what a customer wants or should both sides communicate?
Comment