SmokeZilla
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,041
- Grill(s) owned
- Bull
Okie,
Let me start by saying I really like my particular unit and RT has been very supportive and addressed any concern I surfaced. I also think you nailed it with your great suggestion and positive action. I call it the intravenous needle process. Companies may try to put the needle in your arm when it comes to bleeding you dry for revenue, but we as consumers may need to put the needle back in their “arms” when it comes to properly and accurately stating their product’s known capabilities versus any unrealistic advertised capabilities, claimes, and/or puffery. It will be interesting to see what response you receive. Some companies are litigation risk adverse. As such, even if something makes sense, they cautiously proceed to ensure they don’t inherit liability for a pre-existing condition. From my perspecive it fits the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” phrase which in today’s terms means “if it is broke and only a small percentage of recipients/customers are complaining, don’t fix it”. (For those familiar with the ISO 9001 Business/Quality Management System‘s construct, it would be included in the “Customer Focus” and “Customer Satisfaction” sections (and others areas for that matter). This is especially true if/when a retrofit, recall or safety concern has been identified. Considering the mass market appeal of their products, I wonder if they are determining the risk/reward benefit and defaulting to a conservative position to avoid any downstream, unanticipated negative impact. This would be especially true if the new configurations solve this problem effectively. Just my thoughts.
Let me start by saying I really like my particular unit and RT has been very supportive and addressed any concern I surfaced. I also think you nailed it with your great suggestion and positive action. I call it the intravenous needle process. Companies may try to put the needle in your arm when it comes to bleeding you dry for revenue, but we as consumers may need to put the needle back in their “arms” when it comes to properly and accurately stating their product’s known capabilities versus any unrealistic advertised capabilities, claimes, and/or puffery. It will be interesting to see what response you receive. Some companies are litigation risk adverse. As such, even if something makes sense, they cautiously proceed to ensure they don’t inherit liability for a pre-existing condition. From my perspecive it fits the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” phrase which in today’s terms means “if it is broke and only a small percentage of recipients/customers are complaining, don’t fix it”. (For those familiar with the ISO 9001 Business/Quality Management System‘s construct, it would be included in the “Customer Focus” and “Customer Satisfaction” sections (and others areas for that matter). This is especially true if/when a retrofit, recall or safety concern has been identified. Considering the mass market appeal of their products, I wonder if they are determining the risk/reward benefit and defaulting to a conservative position to avoid any downstream, unanticipated negative impact. This would be especially true if the new configurations solve this problem effectively. Just my thoughts.