Faithless #1 "DO NOT ENCAPSULATE"
1 1

200 posts in this topic

48,381 posts
Posted (edited)

Yep.  It always amuses me when people try to tell CGC how to do business here on these boards, or that ignoring posts or moderating is 'bad for business'.  This is a rather inflated view of one's importance.

Edited by kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,095 posts
5 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

But make no mistake.  That feedback is used to shape profitability, not to appease the customer... unless of course, the appeasement of the customer increases profitability (which happens frequently).  

 

Mostly yes, but sometimes not directly.

As an example, CGC might change, once again the look of the 'label'. They do this for primarily aesthetic reasons and the feedback they receive from the boards is important to them, but ultimately they make the decision based upon what THEY want to have it appear as and in no way does it really make all that much difference in terms of sales and profitability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,095 posts
5 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Chuck, thanks for the well thought out words here, even if it's in disagreement with my original post.

In your example, however, is it really the opinions that would have swayed CGC to change their stance?  Or, is it the loss of business due to the original stance they've taken?  There is a GREAT point of distinction between the two.

What if I were to reframe your example just slightly?  Let's say that CGC no longer answers the phone, and people voice their disapproval right here on these boards.  However, what if it was determined that there was no loss of customers due to this new "no phone calls" policy?  There's plenty of discontent, as expressed by all of the opinions on these open forums.  However, no customers have been lost, and CGC has saved a ton of money on customer support costs.

What should CGC do in that case?  Essentially, as a private company, where do their obligations lie... with a select group posting their the opinions online or to their own bottom line?   If a policy has been proven to help their profitability, even if some people have complained about it, would it make sense to change that policy?    Shouldn't CGC make their decisions based on data, metrics, and their own bottom line, and not on the opinions expressed on a message board?  I believe it would be irresponsible as a company to operate any other way.

 

You may say that my tweaking of your example is far fetched.  That's fair, but would miss the point I'm trying to make.  Opinions, at their core, are just that... opinions.  On their own, they do not matter.  However, occasionally you do run across a situation in which those opinions happen to align with the best interests of the company.  In those cases, can you really say that it was the opinion that actually swayed the policy... or was it simply that the opinion just happen to align with the company's best interests?

And I get it.  Everyone wants to feel as if their opinion matters and that their voices are being heard.  I'm sure that contributed to the strong reaction to my original post.  But, I'll say it again.  We have no ownership stake in CGC.  People making statements such as "I don't want CGC associated with pornography" is just folly.  This is an opinion.  This is not a vote.  The last I checked, none of us are sitting on the Board of Directors at the CGC offices.  Therefore, there is only one effective way to enact change.  If you disagree with the policy, then vote with your wallet.

No one is saying CGC isn't going to primarily do what's in the best interest of their company. Of course they are.

But this is still a relatively new business and we've actually seen all heck break loose on these boards and CGC actually CHANGE their course of action on something. IF that feedback hadn't occurred here on the boards, CGC might've carried on with things and lost business slowly over time without even realizing where the issue came from.

In any merchant situation, one of the greatest fears is NOT the vocal customer, but rather the SILENT customer, who simply walks away, never to return, having given no indication as to why. This forum gives CGC a great tool in hearing what its customers have to say. Of course they don't always have to listen - some people here simply have no idea what they're talking about and seem to exist solely to troll other members - but ultimately it gives the company a constant customer voice to hear what their most important resource - the buyer - has to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,995 posts
4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

No one is saying CGC isn't going to primarily do what's in the best interest of their company. Of course they are.

Agreed.  It's clearly so very obvious.

But yet, people are so quick to take credit for policy changes because they've voiced an opinion.  That is the premise I don't agree with, as the changes aren't driven by the opinions themselves, but rather the realignment of policies to fit their own best interests.  This is why I'm stressing what seems to be so obvious, because it clearly gets lost in the rest of the conversations that have very little to do with the actual outcome.

Even in your own example, you illustrated that CGC would change their policy due to the loss of "'x' amount of customers".  That has nothing to do with opinions and is simply a business decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,605 posts
4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

In any merchant situation, one of the greatest fears is NOT the vocal customer, but rather the SILENT customer, who simply walks away, never to return, having given no indication as to why. This forum gives CGC a great tool in hearing what its customers have to say. Of course they don't always have to listen - some people here simply have no idea what they're talking about and seem to exist solely to troll other members - but ultimately it gives the company a constant customer voice to hear what their most important resource - the buyer - has to say.

Exactly. And, as with any business that maintains a "social" online presence, such as a message board, it's necessary for the company to sift through the noise and distinguish between those who do business with the company, and those who have never done business with the company, and never will. Customer opinions...people who pay their money for the services CGC provides...are infinitely more important than chatter from those who have no interest in doing business with CGC, and never have. 

That certainly doesn't mean that non-customers don't have good ideas. But when it comes to criticism, the opinions of those who actually pay for CGC, either directly through submission, or indirectly by buying slabs, should be given more weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,605 posts
4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

But this is still a relatively new business and we've actually seen all heck break loose on these boards and CGC actually CHANGE their course of action on something. IF that feedback hadn't occurred here on the boards, CGC might've carried on with things and lost business slowly over time without even realizing where the issue came from.

 A famous example was the situation 11-12 years ago, when CGC announced they were going to open an in-house pressing service. The reaction here was so extreme, the idea was scuttled for the time being. Another even more famous example is the "creep engine" slabs of early 2016. That was even more of a reaction. It was precisely because of that reaction that CGC quickly went back to the "inner well" type slabs. The reaction here was incredible. Had that reaction not happened, it's likely CGC would have continued using this method for a much longer time.

That doesn't mean that every opinion shared on the board is considered; or should be. No one has said anything even approaching that. It has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with merit. Sometimes, an individual opinion will resonate, and accomplish change all on its own. Sometimes, a persistent opinion is what accomplishes change. Most of the time, opinions don't accomplish much... but that doesn't mean they can't, or shouldn't, be shared, because one never knows what impact it might have. 

As with everything in life, the answer is somewhere in the middle. The only guarantee is this: the unshared opinion will have no impact on anything, ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 posts

All this talk about CGC listening to people on the boards is hilarious to me!!! Yes they may take some things into consideration, but the bottom line IS the bottom line. After years of talk on these boards, it took Voldey noting the Pence Variants to make CGC do the same. And what about Newton rings? After years of complaining and a poll on the forum, the official line is STILL that some amount of Newton rings is acceptable. Meanwhile, there are two competitors who have proven that Newton rings don't need to be there. Granted, those two each have their own issues, but Newton rings isn't one of them!!! Sorry, if anything, I see CGC reacting to competition a lot faster than to anything stated here. I think some people are over stressing the influence they perceive that they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,605 posts
5 minutes ago, s-dali said:

All this talk about CGC listening to people on the boards is hilarious to me!!! Yes they may take some things into consideration, but the bottom line IS the bottom line. After years of talk on these boards, it took Voldey noting the Pence Variants to make CGC do the same. And what about Newton rings? After years of complaining and a poll on the forum, the official line is STILL that some amount of Newton rings is acceptable. Meanwhile, there are two competitors who have proven that Newton rings don't need to be there. Granted, those two each have their own issues, but Newton rings isn't one of them!!! Sorry, if anything, I see CGC reacting to competition a lot faster than to anything stated here. I think some people are over stressing the influence they perceive that they have.

I think you're being influenced by other commentary. ;)

I don't think anyone here...not a single person, with the possible exception of some of the giant submitters, who have an ear at the company...overestimates their influence with CGC. For example, what do I think my influence with CGC is? Virtually none. If not actually none. If not actually less than none, because of personality issues. And virtually no influence is true of just about everyone.

I think the Newton ring issue is not because CGC doesn't want to fix it, but that they can't, because of the system that they use. My guess is that to fix it would require them to completely start over from scratch, which might effectively make them insolvent. They can't go back; the old slab materials are no longer manufactured (and they wouldn't want to go back.)

But all that said, there's only one guarantee: the unshared opinion will have no impact, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 posts
4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But all that said, there's only one guarantee: the unshared opinion will have no impact, ever.

On that, I totally agree with you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,612 posts
42 minutes ago, s-dali said:

After years of talk on these boards, it took Voldey noting the Pence Variants to make CGC do the same

537615818_Benny1.gif.1b09f65c6adb8cb8c9f60ca0790e9567.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 posts
56 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

537615818_Benny1.gif.1b09f65c6adb8cb8c9f60ca0790e9567.gif

I don't know why you are surprised. I mentioned that fact to you back on May 5th in the Marvel pence thread. 

Here is the link to the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,839 posts
8 minutes ago, s-dali said:

I don't know why you are surprised. I mentioned that fact to you back on May 5th in the Marvel pence thread. 

Here is the link to the page.

He forgot, because he's a dingus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,612 posts
12 minutes ago, s-dali said:

I don't know why you are surprised. I mentioned that fact to you back on May 5th in the Marvel pence thread. 

Here is the link to the page.

I'm not surprised. I know what you said in my thread. You said that CGC started referring to "UK Editions" as "UK Price Variants" as a result of Voldy doing it first, not because I put the case to Matt Nelson directly and he agreed to make the change based on the arguments I put forward. Why else do you think they chose my thread to announce it? Quite why you want to deny me that small pleasure is a mystery to me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,217 posts
3 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm not surprised. I know what you said in my thread. You said that CGC started referring to "UK Editions" as "UK Price Variants" as a result of Voldy doing it first, not because I put the case to Matt Nelson directly and he agreed to make the change based on the arguments I put forward. Why else do you think they chose my thread to announce it? Quite why you want to deny me that small pleasure is a mystery to me. 

 

:sumo: :popcorn: :headbang: :whee:^^ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,381 posts
2 hours ago, s-dali said:

All this talk about CGC listening to people on the boards is hilarious to me!!! Yes they may take some things into consideration, but the bottom line IS the bottom line. After years of talk on these boards, it took Voldey noting the Pence Variants to make CGC do the same. And what about Newton rings? After years of complaining and a poll on the forum, the official line is STILL that some amount of Newton rings is acceptable. Meanwhile, there are two competitors who have proven that Newton rings don't need to be there. Granted, those two each have their own issues, but Newton rings isn't one of them!!! Sorry, if anything, I see CGC reacting to competition a lot faster than to anything stated here. I think some people are over stressing the influence they perceive that they have.

Even more hilarious is the idea CGC knows who the submitters are and listens to them and ignores people they dont know for a fact submit.  That's an inflated view of one's importance, I'd say.  

"Who are you again?" syndrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 posts
12 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm not surprised. I know what you said in my thread. You said that CGC started referring to "UK Editions" as "UK Price Variants" as a result of Voldy doing it first, not because I put the case to Matt Nelson directly and he agreed to make the change based on the arguments I put forward. Why else do you think they chose my thread to announce it? Quite why you want to deny me that small pleasure is a mystery to me. 

 

If I had known that back then, I would have apologized. Since I am just finding this out now, I will apologize here. I am sorry that I assumed something without knowing all the facts. Kudos to you for your accomplishment!!! I mean this sincerely!! You should feel pleasure for your part in that change!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,381 posts

Like CGC has some 'master list' of submitters and their board names and peruse threads and check names off the list as they read 'dont read that one-dont read that one-ok read that one-'

lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,612 posts
12 minutes ago, s-dali said:

If I had known that back then, I would have apologized. Since I am just finding this out now, I will apologize here. I am sorry that I assumed something without knowing all the facts. Kudos to you for your accomplishment!!! I mean this sincerely!! You should feel pleasure for your part in that change!!!

No worries, thanks s-dali. I pushed them over an edge that they were probably already slowly moving towards (thumbsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148 posts
41 minutes ago, kav said:

Like CGC has some 'master list' of submitters and their board names and peruse threads and check names off the list as they read 'dont read that one-dont read that one-ok read that one-'

lol 

Wow, you sure have a low opinion of CGC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,381 posts
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Wow, you sure have a low opinion of CGC.

Actually I have a high opinion.  I cant see them having some 'master list' of board names of submitters, and carefully pore over posts, comparing the list to board names, and then deciding what to read, based on that.  How would they even accomplish this?  lol 

I do not see them as being petty like this, even if they could accomplish it.

Edited by kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1