- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m not sure overall what the benefits are by taking the Trustmark route?
Whilst I applaud the whole concept and purpose such a scheme is likely to create, in our trade I cannot see what would be achieved to be honest?
The complexities and diverse nature of our business cannot be slotted into one simple pidgeon hole. Therefore legislation would be fragmented and bogged down in a mountain of paperwork.
ISO9001 ? Otherwise known as ‘Big Brother is not only watching but controls the very air you are allowed to breath and you must produce the correct paperwork to justify how many breaths you have taken each day!’
Self funding ? Brilliant idea! We work our arses off scraping a living out of what little we get paid and stuff some of it into a Trustmark scheme that only the multi-engineer companies would bother to sign up to anyway. Yet another outgoing expense that is unlikely to be offset by any potential increasing income as a recognised member of the scheme? Shades of DASA spring to mind right now?
Formulating our own standard ? Err CORGI did the same thing when it was created. They nailed their colours to the mast at the time….and the rest is history. 🙁
Let’s be honest, this trade is a mish mash of allsorts. The whole whitegoods service industry is in a total mess of confusion and unco-ordination. The main protagonists being the very manufacturers of the products we are trying to sell and service! They choose not to co-operate. They sell their spares to wholesalers that are up for ripping anyone and everyone no matter who. They jealously guard any and all forms of technical information like a churlish adolescent lest we all steal from their sweetie jar?
What really would be the purpose of encompassing yet another scheme in order to prove we are the good guys, when faced with such anarchy I wonder?
No! No! Don’t tell me……I’ve got it all wrong…… (as usual)….. :rolls:
The only Mark I trust by the way is working his arse off in Bishops Stortford right now I expect? 😉
Re: Trustmark
Martin wrote:No! No! Don’t tell me……I’ve got it all wrong…… (as usual)….. :rolls:
Some of it, yes.
For a start ISO accreditation would only apply to UKW, not the the guys.
No-one is trying to pidgeonhole anything, what is required is as many peopleas possible work to a reasonable standard. What’s wrong with that?
Anyone that agrees to sign up gets to use the Trustmark logo so there is a benefit for all Martin. If that were not the case then you wouldn’t have bothered with the local TS one that you did take onboard, this is similar only a national instead of a sporadic regional effort.
CORGI got changed. Asides from which I’m afraid that my crystal ball is bust this week, so I can’t tell you what will happen in the future. The point is that we have our chance to work with government and do it for ourselves. Again, where’s the problem with that?
The mish mash as you say is all to true but, consider this, what defence have we got against those very manufacturers now?
Can I go along and say that I’m a qualified repairer? No.
The point is that they don’t have to give the info out as there’s no reason for them to do so at all and there’s nothing that we can sling back other than we’re a bit p1ssed off that we don’t have it. Or we could say that our customers want it, so what, big deal?
In other words, we’ve no leverage whatsever. The best you can do is tell then you’re a member of DASA for all the good that will do.
And, think about it, if people know and trust this then how long will it be before, if you had it, that everyone round about you would want it as well?
K.
Re: Trustmark
kwatt wrote:And, think about it, if people know and trust this then how long will it be before, if you had it, that everyone round about you would want it as well?
Ok Ken I really don’t want to rock the boat on this issue, that’s why I did not post my views in the trade forum. I recall I did before some months back on the subject and pissed Kevin off I reckon. 😳
So I best close on the subject by saying….put me down as a maybe? OK?
Re: Trustmark
Martin wrote:
Let’s be honest, this trade is a mish mash of allsorts. The whole whitegoods service industry is in a total mess of confusion and unco-ordination. The main protagonists being the very manufacturers of the products we are trying to sell and service! They choose not to co-operate. They sell their spares to wholesalers that are up for ripping anyone and everyone no matter who. They jealously guard any and all forms of technical information like a churlish adolescent lest we all steal from their sweetie jar?
:
Spot on
Re: Trustmark
Okay, since I’m a bit p1ssed off tonight I’ll bite…
So, WTF do you want to do about it then?
I can’t help but think of a line from an old Rush tune, Freewill, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice” however the lryic rattles on further but if you want more go buy some Rush stuff.
The point is of the quote that, if we and, I do mean WE within this very forum aren’t going to lead then who will? Who will defend the independents in this trade?
Whether they appreciate it or not, pay for it or not. That’s irrelevant TBH as, to protect ourselves we are, by default, forced into a position whereby we have to defend all to save ourselves.
For me it’s simple, all I have to do is find the mecanisim/s by which to do that with.
And, just as a side note, DASA, if nothing else, has proved that nobody wants to pay for it as well as resolutely failing to unite the industry. That’s not a slagging, it’s a fact and, truth be told, it serves more as a lesson than anything else, at least somebody got off thier ar$e and tried even if it was in vain.
What p1sses me off at times is the whole attitude from the industry that the industry’s problems are always someone else’s problem. Those are more often than not the very same feckers that are the first to whinge that nobody did anything to stop the rot.
So come on then, come up with better ideas as I’m more than happy and very willing to hear them.
K.
Re: Trustmark
kwatt wrote:So come on then, come up with better ideas as I’m more than happy and very willing to hear them
No better ideas from me Ken at this point in time, Trustmark and what it stands to achieve with us on board may be one answer and I don’t want you to think I am not open towards taking that route, honest!
But I think that maybe a different approach to the problem is called for?
Harnessing the problem and uniting the solution would be a mammoth task for anyone to undertake. Seeking an industry standard through the likes of Trustmark is not going to solve any problems whatsoever. By proving we are the good guys simply because we are all sporting a Trustmark badge will not improve the problem one iota. The manufacturers will still not sway or be impressed by that at all!
The different approach I refer to, has to be more hands on I’m afraid. They won’t come to us so we have to go to them! We have to cut out the middleman by proving to those manufacturers that we can do a better job more efficiently and at a lower rate than even they or (their agents) can!
CDSL have got the edge and they dominate the very sector UKW could so easily revel in. But they do not (yet at least) have the major players in their grasp. But it’s only a matter of time I guess and as I type I expect they are knocking on someones door, somewhere?
Only by UKW gaining a major player in the whole game, on our side, will the tide turn in our favour. Then and only then, will be the right time to launch into any Trustmark type schemes.
All cloud cuckooland stuff from me so far? …..Yeah….probably so? 😥
But just think for a minute how much it costs Indesit (if I must name names?) to provide a nationwide service network? The logistical nightmare they have to contend with? They, to this day, are desperate for a workable all encompassing solution, born out of producing cheaper and cheaper goods. It’s costing them a fortune in staffing and administration each year….. 😯
OK so maybe Indesit are far too big for us to contemplate right now, but you catch my drift?
Get a major player like that though and we are up and running…. 😆
Oh!….before you fall asleep reading this drivel?……There are hundreds and hundreds of engineers out there (a UKW captive audience even) just waiting for something big to break (pardon the pun?) in order to ensure their long term future. A wealth of talent and the means to succeed…
Just a thought from me anyhow :rolls:
All you need is a few more guys in here to get off their arses and make comment, and you may just have something to work with? 😀
Re: Trustmark
I try not to assume anything Martin, as I’m fond of saying (if not always listening to my own council), assumption is the mother of all f!!k ups.
If we want an industry standard then there has to be a vehicle to deliver it. Full stop, end of story.
We’re not that vehicle yet, we don’t have the penetration to the public psyche. That’s not to say we won’t get there, but that takes either time or a lot of money. Since we don’t have any money we have to settle for time I’m afraid.
The higher the profile of that vehicle in the public eye then the higher the chance of success from both a trade and public perspective. The chance here is essentially to utilise the publicity that surrounds the Trustmark brand.
It’s a good idea, far better then CORGI as, where CORGI is concerned the DTI have backed themsleves into a corner as all that’s promoted is the CORGI brand, then of course CORGI Commercial passses off from that and generates revenue. Now, the kicker in that is that CORGI Commercial doesn’t actually make any money as it’s a not-for-profit organisation. Bet most of you even in here didn’t know that. However, that’s not to say that some members of staff aren’t very handsomely rewarded.
But the fact remains that it is CORGI that is promoted and associated with gas safety, not gas safety itself. A point I did raise with Frontline on Monday and it wasn’t lost on them either, I ensured that. 😉
Martin, you don’t understand manufacturers so much at times and yet so well at others. 😕
They know we’re cheaper and they know we’re better. That’s why so many do use the independents and, even allowing for all the rhetoric from them, they still know this. The problem is that the suits don’t, specifically accountants and marketers.
In most large organisations that are sales driven in a consumer led market there’s a constant war of wills between the accountants, who want to control costs and the marketers, who want to spend what the accountants say they have.
For many, especially the Italian companies, it’s a question of “face”. Much the same for the Germans and the marketers seem to agree as they market the employed engineers as “a force of *** of our own engineers” but you can say the same about independent agents. What you can’t do with the indies is control the look and working methodology as every one is different , unless you have huge volume, et Whirlpool or Electroolux where you can.
CDSL are trying hard. How far they get is an entirely different matter and they have their own issues which are their’s to deal with, I have no need to help or hinder them. Nor have I any desire to do so.
UKW, will it ever become a network, will we ever attract a major player? Quite honestly I don’t know. We have had some serious enquiries but, frankly, we’re not quite ready for that. That’s not to say we won’t be in a week though mind.
Ah, now you get to the crux…
The reason that Indesit and Hoover have engineers is the cost to make them redundant and it’d be a PR disaster if they were to do so as well. So it would harm sales, so the marketers suddenly care about service as it could hurt them. So they battle with the accountant and teh status quo is maintained.
Just as Electrolux how much screwing up service can cost.
I wasnt’ falling asleep, I rarely do, I listen and analyse, offering comment or explanation where it is required. But importantly when people do talk, if you, like me, take the time to actually take it in, you learn.
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.