HLNBLOG

The Sorry State of Tech Support… and what to do about it.

1 Comment

If you are like me, you spend too much time trying to fix the problem in a vain attempt to avoid making a call for technical support.  Why is this?  Because the technical support experience is most often both frustrating and time consuming.  I won’t mention, or maybe I will, that the chance of a satisfactory outcome is vanishingly small.

And the sorry state of technical support is a serious problem because products and services increasingly depend upon technology as a critical component in their ability to deliver the value that is promised to their customers.  All too often the technology is fragile and fails in difficult-to-diagnose ways.  Consequently, the issue is not going to go away, it is going to get worse, much worse.

So why is it that companies cannot seem to support the technology underlying the products that they sell:

  • Generally, the technical support function intimidates/bores company managers who are more likely to have come up through the sales or product development organizations than technology.  More specifically many top managers do not understand technical support which includes two dimensions: 1) technology and 2) support.  Neither of these disciplines are part of their core competencies.  So, it does not get the attention, funding or talent it needs to be successful;
  • Because they do not understand it, company management generally do not see technical support as being a critical component to a robust, complete and well-defined customer service offering;
  • Technical support is not sexy.  This is another reason that top management does not give it the attention it deserves.  And, or should I say as a result, ambitious employees do not see it as the most direct route for advancement within a company.  That said, not being “sexy” does not mean that it is not vitally important;
  • The pool of technically competent candidates is small and the players that have the skills necessary to be successful generally take engineering jobs which are perceived as more prestigious—see previous point;
  • Good technical support staff need to be both technically competent and good communicators.  For whatever reason these two skills often do not seem to be found in the same person.  So, the good communicators don’t know what they are doing, and the technically competent individuals cannot interact with the client in the most productive way;
  • Products, specifically their software modules, are not as robust as they should be.  Quality assurance for the software components is not nearly what it is for manufactured components of the product.  This is the reason that they fail and thereby generate demand for technical support; and
  • Finally, I want to emphasize that technical support can not be optimized unless the solution includes training for support staff, an established process for the delivery of technical support and technology to support delivery.  And that just is not being done.  Sometimes a company will get one (or part of one) of these items right, but I have never seen a company nailing all of them.  That said, even getting one of them right has a tremendously positive impact.

Does your company have a technical support issue?  There are several questions you need to answer:

  • How integral is technology to the success of your product or service?  If you are a computer (hardware or software) company, it surely is.  If you sell furniture, it likely is not;
  • Are your products well-designed, i.e. is it obvious: 1­) how to use them; 2) what is wrong when they are not working; and 3) how to get them operational after a failure.  Poorly designed products need more technical support;
  • Do your customers make a lot of calls to your technical support line and if they do, what is the NPS for that service?  A “yes” answer to this question is likely driven by the answers to the first two questions, but also speaks to how well your technical support organization handles the failures implied by a positive response to the first question and a negative one to the second.

Further to the second bullet point directly above, a quality product does not fail and when it does, it is obvious what is necessary to affect a recovery.  So well-designed products mitigate a lot of the need for technical support.  That said, even the best designed products are going to need support and even the best designed products have complexities that need to be sorted by qualified resources.  As a side note, it is not a bad investment to have your product development team members (all of them) spend time taking calls for customers, it will give them a real feel for how their efforts affect your customers and will make them better (more empathetic) product development players.

Big Ass Fans and eero are examples of products that depend on technology, are extremely well-designed products that work well, are designed to be easily deployed, and are easy to remediate when things go wrong.  They also have exceptionally high performing technical support organizations, so when something does go wrong and it does, they are capable of quickly getting things back on track.

These companies have somehow figured out how to build quality software (which means fewer calls) and deploy knowledgeable staff, which fixes two of the issues I see in the provision of technical support.  And, their success in these two areas results in good outcomes for their customers.

There is a business opportunity here and I am surprised companies like Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM are not all over it.  First, they all have internal need for tools that can support the provision of technical support for products that they sell to their clients.  Second, once the technical frameworks for are developed, they could be deployed as a cloud service to companies that are looking to build their own technical support capabilities.

I believe that technology will be a key component in improving this situation.  It will solve two problems.  It will make it easier for companies to provision expertise and it will allow companies who use it to better leverage the scarce staff that is available.  And I believe that AI should be the technology of choice.  AI is extremely good at detecting patterns which is exactly the skill that is needed in doing diagnostics—the second step in resolving an issue.  There are numerous examples of systems that have been trained to identify/diagnose/predict problems in mechanical devices (e.g., jet engines) and the human body (certain types of cancer).  I can imagine AI software designed to explore and diagnose failed systems and recommend solutions or even implement fixes.  This would require building and implementing processes to capture training data.  This is no small task but given shortages of technical resources that are likely to be persistent, the return on investment could be substantial.

I can also imagine an implementation plan that is incremental.  This would speed the delivery of features that provide the biggest marginal return and allow for the development of a sound (tested) foundation before more difficult and risky components are tackled. 

A company like IBM has the capability to both develop the tools and provide consulting services to develop technical support processes and assist in the deployment of the complete and well-defined solution.  Companies like Alphabet, Microsoft and Amazon are certainly capable of developing the technology and providing a cloud-based deployment of that component of the solution.  They could use third party consultancies to configure the software to each of their client’s needs, develop processes and deploy the solution.

Further, the market is big and growing.  Everyone from home appliance suppliers to car manufacturers are incorporating technologies that are both integral to their products and complex in their implementation and operation. 

So, why isn’t progress being made on this front?  A couple of reasons:

  • It is a hard problem to solve.
  • It is a multifaceted issue (see list above) that requires a systematic approach by a multi-disciplinary team—I said it is a hard problem!
  • It will take considerable resources to bring a solution to market.
  • It is a risky venture.  There is no guarantee of success.

The upside is that I do not believe that it will be easily replicated.  So, a business provisioning technical support infrastructure and consulting assistance, should have a sustainable competitive advantage.

In the meantime, there are several things that you can do to improve your technical support capabilities:

  • Develop a plan to improve your technical support capabilities.  Focus on figuring out how to improve the quality of your technical support staff (it is possible) and make sure that you adopt a service level commitment that is appropriate to the reputation you want your company to have;
  • Put the proper management in place.  That would be management who is capable of formulating and implementing the plan;
  • Focus on process, training and staff; and
  • Never forget to have enough resource to support your customer base.  Do not be fooled:  A bad customer service experience has costly consequences.  They may not be immediate, but it will cost you.

Finally, and this should have come first, place an emphasis on quality.  Because quality code is a lot less likely to require technical support and when it does, a well-designed product will be easier to diagnose and fix!

Copyright 2022 Howard Niden

— you can find this (days earlier) and other posts at www.niden.com.

       And, if you like this post: 1) please let me know; and 2) pass on your “find” to others.

How to Kill a Business– Slowly

Leave a Comment

There is a joke going around:  How do you make a small fortune in Bitcoin?  Answer—Start off with a big one!  There is parallel line of thought that applies to companies:  How do you make a small, unprofitable company?  Answer—Start off with a big one and don’t invest in it.

As is always the case it is not that simple.  Not investing is the result of one or both of the following:

  • Lack of imagination; or
  • Lack of understanding about the business.

It is often hard to tell which of these is at play, but it seems to me it is almost always a combination of the two.  Let me give you an example.  This comes from the cable industry as I believe that they are an exemplar for both issues.

I recently contacted my cable provider, Spectrum (Charter Communications), for the 4th time this year.  There are multiple issues:

  • Quality of service, e.g. they only provide a 1080p service.  This is well behind what can be had from other sources;
  • Management of their customer service organization.  Their technicians are not given the provisions, tools or training to properly do their job;
  • UI/UX.  It is embarrassing.  It doesn’t deliver a clean complete or consistent user interface or experience.
  • And the reason I called—their software is buggy.

Further they do not seem to be making investments to solve these issues:

  • The hardware they are using is at least 6 years old.  This was based on being told that I had the most up to date hardware and a quick check of the FCC registration database on the unit in my possession.  That is ancient by technology standards;
  • They are letting bugs go unresolved for a year or more.  That is how long I have been experiencing a situation where I schedule recordings which are then unviewable.  After replacing the hardware (twice), I was told it was a “known issue”;
  • I have not seen a significant software update in the year I have been subscribing to their service;
  • Their service offering has not accounted for changes (like streaming) to how their customers are now consuming content; and
  • They have not developed a vision that would keep them relevant, i.e. figure out how to provide a seamless set of services (a content delivery platform) that would delight their customers and provide a long term competitive advantage.  My apologies if they have, but there is no evidence of it.

The description provided above is not unique to Spectrum.  It applies to all the big players: AT&T, Cox, Comcast, Dish, etc.  I would note that AT&T took an expensive detour into content (a business they had no experience or expertise in) with the purchase and subsequent divestiture of Time Warner.  And they wonder why they are losing subscribers. 

The streaming providers have similar problems.  Users like the idea of streaming, but the big streaming players (Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ etc.) have not recognized the shortcomings in their products and customers are tiring of the deficiencies and have been losing interest in that model too, as far as it has matured, and are showing signs of abandoning these services too.

Content may be king, but as both Google and Amazon have proven if you do a better job of helping your customers discover, manage and access the prodigious volumes of content (i.e, what they are looking for), the profits will follow.  Further, Roon has proven that people are willing to pay for products that help the user discover, organize and enjoy content (in their case music) that comes from a variety of sources, not Roon.  The folks at Roon provide a comprehensive (in terms of functionality) platform that encourages and enhances the enjoyment of music thereby delighting its customers.

Given the revenue the players in video delivery industry, both the linear (traditional cable) and streaming varieties generate, there is no excuse for the state of their offerings.  With just a small allocation (relative to revenue) these players would have state of the art offerings that would redefine how media is consumed and would not only be delighting their customers, but also growing their businesses and margins.

The large retailers (Sears. JC Penny, Macy’s, etc.) have already been through this process and the same lack of imagination and understanding of their business (as it is and will be rather than what it was) provides a cautionary tale for both the cable companies and any other business that forgets how to innovate and keep their business fresh and vital.  They had large prosperous businesses, now…

Copyright 2022 Howard Niden

— you can find this (days earlier) and other posts at www.niden.com.

       And, if you like this post: 1) please let me know; and 2) pass on your “find” to others.

Beating a Dead (Cryptocurrency) Horse!

1 Comment

Have you ever considered what you might propose if you had the opportunity to revise the way we pay for things, hold our wealth and keep records regarding what we have purchased?  Satoshi Nakamoto did when he developed and implemented Bitcoin.

Based on the design, I believe I can safely say that Mr. Nakamoto had a serious lack of trust in the banking system.  And not just the commercial banks, but the investment banks and the central banks.  The banks had done plenty (remember this was 2008) to engender distrust.  They:

  • Were key players, if not the primary cause of the financial crisis;
  • Backed/promoted/protected a system that many felt (and still do) extracted rents far more than the value provided, but they were the only game in town;  and
  • Did not innovate or even properly maintain/modernize the infrastructure that supports the banking system.

And the leadership that controls the banking system has not recognized how dissatisfied and angry their customers really are.  It reminds me of the situation the French aristocracy got itself into just before the French Revolution.  And we know how that turned out.  I could go on with my analogy, but I will spare you.

That said, I have been (fairly) accused of not letting things drop and will not disappoint.  Cryptocurrency is one of those things that has been the focus of more than one of my blog posts.  One thing that has been consistent is my belief that Cryptocurrency’s acceptance is a visceral reaction to the failures of a banking system that has not been responsive to its constituents.  Queue back to my comment about the French revolution.

That said, my thinking about Cryptocurrency has become more nuanced and multidimensional.  In fact, I think I now have a story that: 1) makes sense; and 2) can provide a basis for thinking beyond Crypto, allowing us to move to the next stage regarding making serious improvements to the services that have been traditionally provided by banks:

  • Issue money and ensure its stability.  This is the role of the central banks.  They control the money supply and thereby are both responsible that it is available and that it remains stable.  Over time I believe they have done a C+ job.  This is mainly based on the periodic spikes in inflation and subsequent downturns in the economy over the past 100 years.
  • Provide a secure depository for its customers money.  This is the job of the commercial banks and to some extent the investment firms.  As in the previous bullet, they have a mixed performance.  The banking system has done a generally good job with insured demand deposits, but in other areas tends to either over or under regulate leaving lots of room for crooks (like Bernie Madoff) to take people’s life savings.
  • Provide loans.  This is the job of the commercial and to some extent investment banks and   venture capitalists.  Most people think that banks take advantage (one example being student loans) when they can.  And fail miserably regarding responsibilities to their clients because of a combination of greed and incompetence, e.g., the financial crisis.

In all three of these cases the situation was/is exacerbated by an unwillingness to address some basic problems.  This includes an archaic technical infrastructure and functionally impoverished/deficient system that provides the foundation for the operation of the banking system.  Further the banking system establishment has done a terrible job of communications i.e., they have done painfully little to explain what the banking system does and why it provides value for money.

To summarize, the banking system:

  1. Has engendered a profound lack of trust driven by greed, incompetence and bad communications.
  2. Delivers poor functionality and performance largely based on archaic infrastructure that is both technically and functionally deficient.
  3. Does a terrible job of communicating the value proposition, i.e., where is the value for money, for its products and services?  These leaves customers believing that the rents are too high and that they are being, once again, taken advantage of.

This brings us back to Mr. Nakamoto.  He promised a technocrat’s solution to all the problems outlined above.  The Blockchain technology, in the form of Bitcoin, would eliminate the need for banks.  It would provide the functionality of the banking system and eliminate the need for all those deplorable bankers.

There were a lot of appealing aspects to the solution.  The most attractive was that it would eliminate the need for banks.  It would provide the three main functions of money:

  1. Store of value/wealth
  2. Unit of account
  3. Medium of exchange

And, the story goes, do it in a way that eliminates the greedy bankers from the equation and replace them with a transparent set of algorithms that is managed in a decentralized (democratic) way and is therefore responsive, efficient and incorruptible.

So, we have an established system (current banking system) that is seriously flawed and a potential alternative (Bitcoin and more generally Cryptocurrency) that, on the surface looks pretty good.  But, does it?

  • Cryptocurrency is expensive.  I am not saying that it should not be, security comes at a cost.  But I do not think we really understand that cost.  And when would anyone buy into a long term investment when you do not know what it costs?
  • Cryptocurrency has trouble scaling.  This is a real issue when you are talking about having to process hundreds of billions of transactions a year.
  • Cryptocurrency has not proven to be stable store of value.  This is an issue when many people use it to transact business and also might be holding a large portion of their personal wealth in this medium.
  • While much is made about the integrity of Blockchain and the core technology has proven to be bulletproof, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link (forgive the play on words).  And, while the core technology does live up to its press, there are many associated products (like exchanges and wallets), that do not fare so well.  Just Google “5 biggest blockchain scams” for a scary look at how crooks have hacked around the blockchain technology to steal people blind.
  • And finally, Cryptocurrency is a technical solution.  It assumes: 1) that Crypto is capable of supporting all of the use cases associated with replacing the “banking system”; and 2) that a functional solution will spontaneously form around it.  I would observe that Bitcoin is 14 years old (ancient by technology standards), and a usable replacement for the legacy system has not formed around it, whether the “it” is Bitcoin or any other Cryptocurrency.

What I can tell you is that if I was to design a replacement for money it would not look like either the present bank-centric system or one built around Blockchain (at least based on what I know today).  And I can say that, for those of you who do know, as a person who designed a payment system that is still operating successfully today.

That said, if I were to undertake to design a replacement for our current system, I would follow a process:

  • Develop evaluation criteria against which candidate replacement systems would be evaluated.  This would include both functional and technical requirements.  The focus would be the creation of specifications that are complete and well defined, but more importantly meet the needs of the constituencies that will be depending on the system.  The evaluation criteria would include checks for efficacy, efficiency, extensibility, maintainability and that the product includes the functions necessary to objectively be considered a winner.  
  • Identify/specify all of the solutions that might be capable of winning the evaluation that I outlined above.  This would undoubtedly include setting up several competing teams to identify candidates and develop detailed competing proposals for each candidate.  Each proposal would include a detailed description of how it would meet the functional requirements outlined for the system and an outline of the underlying technical solution being proposed.
  • Evaluate the candidate solutions against the evaluation criteria and pick a winner. 

I know what some of you are thinking.  This guy is obsessive-compulsive and is overengineering the solution. Furthermore, you are thinking that this is going to take a lot of time and money.  My response is that this is a very high stakes game and we cannot afford to iteratively prototype a solution and hope that, at the end of the road, it will do what we want it to.  This is a moonshot.  The size, scope and impact are enormous.  In fact, it is bigger than the Apollo program.  This effort needs to be handled with care.  It needs to be a well specified (to requirements that are complete and well defined) and engineered/implemented in a way that helps to ensure our long-term competitive advantage, serves all of it constituencies and maintains the integrity of our money system.

This does not mean that the solution must be fully specified up front—note that I have never said functionally complete, “just that the product includes the functions necessary to objectively be considered a winner”.  In addition to being functionally rich (enough to delight its constituencies out of the box) it must also be buildable, high quality, maintainable, extensible and efficient.

I would propose (here) that there are two ways an effort of this size, scope and importance can be undertaken.  One would be to set up an organization like DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).  Let us call it F(inance)ARPA and it could be overseen by the Fed or the Department of the Treasury.  The other route would be for the private sector to (as it already should have) undertake a program to fund and execute the process I have outlined above.  I believe that there are other mechanisms, but my purpose here is to induce thought, and not to write a book.

The establishment has clearly failed us.  While I think they should be penalized for their incompetence, apathy and lack of action, I am not one to cut my nose off to spite my face.  The need is great the size and scope of the effort is enormous and the established players are the ones best resourced to undertake the endeavor.  That said, we need to hold them accountable because failure would have dire consequences.  Society stops functioning in the absence of an ability to do commerce!

Copyright 2022 Howard Niden

— you can find this (days earlier) and other posts at www.niden.com.

       And, if you like this post: 1) please let me know; and 2) pass on your “find” to others.

DeSantis vs. Disney

1 Comment

I am not happy to be writing this post.  The situation saddens me on several levels, but maybe not the ones you might be expecting. 

Disney albeit somewhat tardily stood up against Florida HB 1557 (the “Don’t Say Gay” bill).  For a company that is in the business of communicating, they did a terrible job of explaining the motivation (or what should have been the motivation) for their opposition to the bill.  So, I will tell you what I believe they should have said:

  • Disney has a large and diverse workforce.  Quite of few of those workers live and work   in Florida and Disney’s plan is to increase those numbers over time.  This bill makes it harder for Disney to attract and retain the best and the brightest to their new work locations in Florida and that makes it harder for Disney to be competitive in an exceedingly competitive market.
  • Disney strongly believes that diversity is what has made the United States the world’s leading economy.  Similarly, Disney’s success is based largely on a diverse and capable workforce.
  • If you want Florida to continue to be a dynamic environment that draws world class companies to the state, HB 1557 has to go!

Further, had Disney dealt with this issue in a timely fashion (they had to see it coming ) rather than waiting for its employees to protest its lack of action, it might have been able to finesse the situation rather than apply blunt force in a hurried and, in retrospect, ill-conceived manner.

Governor DeSantis has decided to send Disney a very strong message for taking a stand against HB 1557.  He is threatening to revoke a status that enables Disney to operate its theme parks independently of local governments — a situation that has been beneficial to all parties, including the municipalities surrounding Disney and the State of Florida.

He has let his ego get in the way of good decision-making.  It is becoming clearer by the day that his decision to revoke Disney’s ability to operate within the authority of the Reedy Creek Improvement Act, if successful, will have short term consequences (i.e., operating costs and debt will need to be assumed by surrounding counties) that will negatively impact the surrounding areas. 

His actions will also certainly be noted by other companies that might be considering Florida as a location to do business.  They will rightly wonder how stable and predictable the business environment is and likely decide against Florida.  Governor DeSantis’ actions are not business friendly and that (as California seems to be now learning) is a really bad idea.  Even if Governor DeSantis wins this battle, it almost certainly means he will lose the war.

It truly pains me that I must make these observations and it embarrasses me that this conflict is taking place in the state in which I now reside especially given all of the other more substantial issues that should be taking up both Governor DeSantis’s and Disney’s time.

That said, I am not taking sides here although I am definitely on one of them.  I think that each of the parties has a right to their opinion.  I am suggesting that if each of the parties had done their jobs, there were several places where this situation could have taken a productive turn and not left us in the predicament we are now clearly in, i.e. this probably never would have happened if both of the parties had thought through their actions, done their jobs and considered the consequences of their actions.

Copyright 2022 Howard Niden

— you can find this (days earlier) and other posts at www.niden.com.

       And, if you like this post: 1) please let me know; and 2) pass on your “find” to others.

What does Ferrari know that Chevy (and others for that matter) doesn’t?

Leave a Comment

During a recent conversation with a friend who is in the process of trying to buy a 2022 Corvette, he told me a story that I have heard before.  The dealer:

  • “Promised” him a car sooner than anyone else would;
  • Took a non-refundable deposit;
  • Has not yet delivered;
  • Now wants more money, i.e. is raising the price; and
  • Will not provide a firm delivery date for the car.

To be fair, at the beginning of this misadventure my friend should have been suspicious when all of the local dealers told him that the cars were in short supply and it might be quite a while before he would be able to take delivery.

That said, I began to wonder how a brand (not Chevrolet) that has products that are in continual short supply and whose customers usually get what they want when they want it can not only thrive but keep those customers both happy and loyal.  So, what is Ferrari’s secret:

  • They build a fabulous product;
  • They have developed and maintained one of the world’s most powerful brands;
  • The always build fewer of their products than there is demand for them; and
  • They reward their loyal customers.

Fabulous Product

Any product that is going to be able to differentiate itself in the long term needs multiple hard to replicate attributes and Ferrari has 3:

  • First Class Engineering—Enzo Ferrari sold cars to the “public” to pay for his racing habit.  The early road-going cars were detuned versions of the cars that he raced competitively.  They were built to the exacting standards necessary to compete in a punishing racing environment.  They were examples of the best in industrial engineering.  As a result, they present as the industrial version of works of art to be appreciated for the quality of construction and the resulting durability and performance.
  • Exquisite Design—Most people agree Ferrari cars, old and new look the way they do because they perform better that way.  At the same time, they are visually appealing and Ferrari has done a great job of making the most of necessary aerodynamic design requirements by hiring designers who leveraged the necessary into a visual art form
  • Top Performance—the Brits coined a phrase: Fit for Purpose” and the Ferrari delivers.  It is a first-rate performance car and performs brilliantly as a statement about the owner.

While there are some automotive products that can hit on one or two of these attributes, very few can claim the trifecta.

Powerful Brand

Ferrari is arguably the most powerful automotive brand (maybe even across product classes) in the world.  It is a luxury brand and it is a performance brand.  It is also an aspirational brand.   The brand is not only built on the products that Ferrari builds today, but also on Ferrari’s heritage.  The cars that Ferrari built is the 1950s and 1960s are even more valuable than those that they build today.  A Ferrari is an appreciating asset largely because of the strength of the brand.  And the brand is strong not only because of the products Ferrari produces today, but also because Ferrari invests in the heritage.  Ferrari will service/restore your 1963 250GT and certify that it is both real (not a copy) and correctly assembled with the right parts.  This is important when the average retail price is nearly $1.6MM.  This commitment reinforces a history of greatness that continues today.  I would note that this particular model is nowhere near the most expensive Ferrari you could buy.

Ferrari’s heritage only partially based on its roadgoing cars.  The real anchor is racing.  Today Ferrari races to support its roadgoing brand, but as I noted earlier, in the beginning, Enzo Ferrari sold cars to pay for his racing team.  And many people buy a Ferrari to own a piece of that history and the potential, given the capabilities of the street cars, of driving like one of the many talented Ferrari F1 drivers.  And, if not that, to be able to drive down just about any road and have everyone turn to look at your ride.

Demand Exceeds Supply

Enzo Ferrari once famously said that he would always deliver one car less than the market demands.  His point, that the goal was to leave people wanting.  This is technically part of the brand discussion.  Exclusivity is an important part of the Ferrari brand.  And customers wait (sometimes many) months to be able to get their car.  This means that even if you have the money, the product might be out of your reach.  And the fact that you can not get it is part of the allure—a characteristic of the brand.

Customer Rewards

Ferrari rewards its clients several ways:

  • The product delights their clients whether they are buying it as a grand tourer, a track car or a prestige vehicle.  Ferrari is very good at exceeding its owner expectations;
  • The company takes care of you.  It does cost, and it really costs, but the service is exceptional; and
  • This is where we started this post.  Ferrari has a very well-defined way to buy one of their cars and it does not include paying premiums over list.  If you want a new Ferrari, you go into the dealership and sign a sales contract and agree to pay a lot of money.  Then you wait.  When the car is an exceptionally high demand vehicle when/if you get it does not depend on paying more money.  It depends on how many Ferraris you have already bought. 

The idea is that if you are a really good customer, you get first dibs. 

The bottom line here is that if you make a great product, you can charge a lot of money and still keep your customers happy (and loyal— Ferrari buyers are incredibly loyal) if you follow the rules and treat them right.

And finally, I believe that every company that I have dealt with during the course of my career would have been better off had they studied Ferrari’s brand/product philosophy and incorporated elements of it into their own.

BTW—I don’t own a Ferrari and don’t intend to😊

Copyright 2022 Howard Niden

— you can find this (days earlier) and other posts at www.niden.com.

       And, if you like this post: 1) please let me know; and 2) pass on your “find” to others.

HLNBLOG