Executive Summary: How do you deal with a profusion of social media metrics which often have an unclear context? We need metrics with clear semantics. Some of these metrics may be custom created for a specific brand, consumer profile, activity and social media context. We could create two categories of metrics- generic, infrastructure metrics of the type that are commonly thrown about and need contextual understanding, and functional metrics that have clear semantics attached.
The Story So Far
We covered a need for strategic thought behind social media marketing investments below:http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-strategize-or-not-to-strategize.html
The next step is to generate a picture or customer touchpoints/ interactions with the brand across various channels. Besides qualitative insights, you would like concrete measures that support these insights.
There are challenges in tying in consumer behavior in a "regular" distribution channel with that across social media channels. Leveraging your existing, real world consumer profiles in the social media world is a separate theme. Our focus in this post is to find ways to measure and track consumer behavior in the social media channels.
Challenges with Interactive Metrics Today
There are two challenges with social media metrics today:
1> A profusion of metrics.
2> A need to understand the context in which these metrics are being generated.
David Berkowitz has a great post here on the various metrics available to marketers today, and a proposed Cost Per Social Action (CPSA) metric:http://www.marketersstudio.com/2009/08/cpsa-cost-per-social-action-the-new-pricing-model-for-social-media.htmlThere are third party companies like Visible Measures doing interesting work as well.
As for context, a wise man once said, context is everything. Does a metric mean the same coming from a face to face interaction as opposed to one over twitter, or even one from a different social media platform?
A Potential Solution
Some new metrics are needed. However, they need to be functional in nature. By functional- I mean that the metrics need to carry a consistent meaning for brand marketers. CPM clicks could be meaningless in some contexts. You might argue that this is true of all metrics. True. Hence the need for metrics with specific meaning and context attached to them.
I am not saying this is the end of the existing metrics. We could have two classes of metrics- the infrastructure metrics and the functional metrics. All metrics have semantics, hence I am calling these new metrics "functional" metrics, instead of calling them semantic metrics.
Future Shock
There lies the key. While generic, industry standard metrics are important, there is a huge *future* potential for metrics customized to the brand. These will hinge on the data collection capabilities of social media platforms, and their ability to share it in a cheap, safe, anonymized manner with third parties for further analysis. Additional factors that come into play- quality of data, privacy concerns and analytics capabilities.
What Can We Do Now?
While it is great to theorize about the future, there is opportunity today to develop measures that make sense for a specific brand, consumer profile, activity and social media context.
You are welcome to contact me for a conversation on these.
Update 1 (Thanks to David's followup): Functional Metrics Example
Craig has a great illustration of my distinction between infrastructure and functional metrics here:
http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/03/12/memo-to-the-cfo-3-lead-generation-metrics-that-matter/
Cost Per Lead (CPL) could be called an "infrastructure" metric, as opposed to Cost Per Opportunity (CPO) which could be called a "functional" metric. CPO is tied to the lead and pipeline generation funnel, and not to the various tools and mechanics that cause CPL number variation. CPL feeds into CPO generation.
Update 2: Caveats and Another Functional Metrics Example
The challenges the metrics are expected to address:
1. In metrics, we often miss the forest for the trees. As I have mentioned before- Marketing is following Social Media.
2. Given the context of the million dollar Superbowl ads, we need to build the kind of "bridges" in social media that already exist in traditional media and which allow traditional media to justify its spend to some extent. That's a separate problem.
So taking the sales theme further (you can see I am trying to leverage my B2B sales/ account management experience) here's what I would call an infrastructure metric derived out of a sales force effectiveness ratio: social media effectiveness ratio = social media "wins"/ customer "contacts".
Now, you might call sales force effectiveness metric a functional metric that has been translated into an infrastructure metric. True, wins and contacts are tied to the platform. We then build a cross platform metric that takes this data and spits out the "functional metric" results.
The Four Philips brand equity measures- Uniqueness, Relevance, Attractiveness and Credibility- are a tougher portability nut to crack. However, a quick metric that is "translatable" that would be familiar to brand and category managers- ACV.
What do you think?
Additional Background
A backgrounder to help you develop your own perspective on the ideas here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/brands-economics-blink-twitter-facebook.html
--
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Innovation and Effective Healthcare for The Masses: An Oxymoron?
I tread carefully when it comes to discussions on optimizing healthcare solutions for the masses because Stephen Hawking's image crops up in my mind with this question: What if we designed a wonderful system that made it really difficult for Stephen Hawking to seek assistance at any point in his life? Replace Stephen Hawking with any person important to you, or who you believe is important to society, and you know what I mean.
Teams designing an effective healthcare system for the masses have challenges on sustaining innovation that are slightly different from those faced by mass market consumer products companies.
For a mass market beverage company, the challenge in supporting innovation may exemplified by the case of the Quaker Oats Company product portfolio acquisition. However, for regulators designing an effective healthcare system, the real challenge in societal optimization of healthcare lies in supporting innovation "pathways" through:
1> supporting basic research, and,
2> providing markets, processes and infrastructure for very expensive drugs to hit the market, and,
3> providing patients means to seek solutions outside the "mass" healthcare system.
For patients that have to pay out of pocket, then the government must make this process seamless, painless, and provide structures that help individuals extract some "economic rent" from (no apparent or direct attached economic benefit to) society. Depending on the context, you could call easy access to private, non profit foundations, to help fund your recovery, a form of economic rent.
In fact, the government may leverage experience with organ transplants for designing these "innovation pathways": http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/unos/
The three points listed above are examples of the way certain "types" of innovation may stop getting support once creating and sustaining a mass market healthcare system becomes a prime focus of the society. I realize I am effectively proposing an indirect subsidy for innovation. I am in favor of this sort of indirect subsidy, because my hypothesis is that this may have a multiplier effect on drug research. My perspective is that this indirect subsidy would be similar to the investment in national highways in the last century.
What do you think?
--
Teams designing an effective healthcare system for the masses have challenges on sustaining innovation that are slightly different from those faced by mass market consumer products companies.
For a mass market beverage company, the challenge in supporting innovation may exemplified by the case of the Quaker Oats Company product portfolio acquisition. However, for regulators designing an effective healthcare system, the real challenge in societal optimization of healthcare lies in supporting innovation "pathways" through:
1> supporting basic research, and,
2> providing markets, processes and infrastructure for very expensive drugs to hit the market, and,
3> providing patients means to seek solutions outside the "mass" healthcare system.
For patients that have to pay out of pocket, then the government must make this process seamless, painless, and provide structures that help individuals extract some "economic rent" from (no apparent or direct attached economic benefit to) society. Depending on the context, you could call easy access to private, non profit foundations, to help fund your recovery, a form of economic rent.
In fact, the government may leverage experience with organ transplants for designing these "innovation pathways": http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/unos/
The three points listed above are examples of the way certain "types" of innovation may stop getting support once creating and sustaining a mass market healthcare system becomes a prime focus of the society. I realize I am effectively proposing an indirect subsidy for innovation. I am in favor of this sort of indirect subsidy, because my hypothesis is that this may have a multiplier effect on drug research. My perspective is that this indirect subsidy would be similar to the investment in national highways in the last century.
What do you think?
--
Friday, July 24, 2009
Find Clarity on the Healthcare Debate. Now. Here's How.
Based on the French Openesque rallies in Congress over Healthcare so far, most folks, including Peter Singer in an NYT article*, agree on some key points:
1> Private health insurance must remain available.
2> Consumers must pay less for healthcare.
So, why are we still debating? The "how" is keeping us busy! You, as the consumer and the raison d'etre of this battle, can seek the following from your representatives:
1> A baseline of the current healthcare costs, overt and covert, by consumer segments.
2> Projected costs for current and proposed healthcare plans.
3> Healthcare market structure definition and guidelines for market agent behavior, tied to measurable outcomes, that all entities- private and government- must adhere to.
In plain old straight talk, the answers to these questions help *you* decide.
Both Democrats and Republicans have leveraged the government as a market agent in the financial services industry. This learning could be transferred to the Healthcare industry. It may shed light on triggers for the government to become a service provider market player and also triggers for the government to exit the service provider value chain to return to just regulating the market.
In terms of cost, talk to any healthcare practitioner and he/ she will tell you its all about incentives. What would you change if an internist is not paid by an insurance company for taking steps that help prevent a more expensive medical condition later because it is not part of her job description? What would you change if you thought someone was recommending tests for sleep apnea when its a case of tonsilitis? This requires clarity on not just market structures, but also incentive processes.
To summarize: These questions with help each party in the debate develop a contextual, competitive positioning strategy to achieve recognizable differentiation in the market through both methods and outcomes.
If you are wondering how we can continue supporting broad innovation in healthcare, see here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/07/innovation-and-effective-healthcare.html
* Peter Singer's New York Times article on healthcare: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=5
What do you think?
--
1> Private health insurance must remain available.
2> Consumers must pay less for healthcare.
So, why are we still debating? The "how" is keeping us busy! You, as the consumer and the raison d'etre of this battle, can seek the following from your representatives:
1> A baseline of the current healthcare costs, overt and covert, by consumer segments.
2> Projected costs for current and proposed healthcare plans.
3> Healthcare market structure definition and guidelines for market agent behavior, tied to measurable outcomes, that all entities- private and government- must adhere to.
In plain old straight talk, the answers to these questions help *you* decide.
Both Democrats and Republicans have leveraged the government as a market agent in the financial services industry. This learning could be transferred to the Healthcare industry. It may shed light on triggers for the government to become a service provider market player and also triggers for the government to exit the service provider value chain to return to just regulating the market.
In terms of cost, talk to any healthcare practitioner and he/ she will tell you its all about incentives. What would you change if an internist is not paid by an insurance company for taking steps that help prevent a more expensive medical condition later because it is not part of her job description? What would you change if you thought someone was recommending tests for sleep apnea when its a case of tonsilitis? This requires clarity on not just market structures, but also incentive processes.
To summarize: These questions with help each party in the debate develop a contextual, competitive positioning strategy to achieve recognizable differentiation in the market through both methods and outcomes.
If you are wondering how we can continue supporting broad innovation in healthcare, see here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/07/innovation-and-effective-healthcare.html
* Peter Singer's New York Times article on healthcare: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=5
What do you think?
--
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Private Equity Firms and Large Company Acquisitions
Richard Friedman’s key factors for Private Equity funds targeting large companies- financing, downturn lag effects and compensation limits on management, listed here
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/03/6-private-equity-firms-and-large.html
- lead to a host of follow up questions.
Are the public capital markets more imperfect than perfect at corporate governance? In more cases than not, have capital markets been reduced to purely reflecting the underperformer reality of a large company as opposed to packing the bite that enforces change? Fragmented ownership is a factor. But is that it? There are numerous cases of an activist investors that have not met their primary objectives (I am not talking about activist investors whose primary objective is greenmail).
If we look at Friedman’s 3 points, and buy the fact that no team can consistently beat economic headwinds to provide massively outperforming returns, would you call private equity firms spectacular market timers? Gives you a simple screen- find a lag effect, and find a management team that’s already furiously at work to beat it, incentivize it to keep the boat steady, and voila! outperformer returns!
Consistent market timing? Really? A simple screen provides outperformer returns? Consistently?
Now, running a large enterprise that is suffering lag effects of a downturn takes some skill. At the simplest level, the private equity investor can certainly simulate an activist investor and provide senior management the backing it needs to rechannel energies from quarter to quarter window dressing into initiative that dovetail with the exit time frame. The private equity takeover can function as the step change that galvanizes the organization into focusing, even functioning as a hedgehog focused on a target.
Even these “operational improvements” count on:
existing management’s ability to direct, or shake up, existing relationships, or,
the investor’s ability to bring in people that can achieve the investor’s objectives.
Contingent upon incentives working, once the deal is struck, execution patterns and outcomes similar to Post Merger Integration efforts should dominate.
Stepping back, what are the patterns and markers that a private equity investor can use to manipulate the trade offs across financing, directed human capital (read operational improvements), and macroeconomic conditions to achieve outperformer returns?
The question’s underlying axiom is obvious; it is possible, with some consistency, to provider outperformer returns. You now also have a rudimentary structure (dare I say a quant model? :-)) to value the impact of these three components on final returns.
What do you think?
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/03/6-private-equity-firms-and-large.html
- lead to a host of follow up questions.
Are the public capital markets more imperfect than perfect at corporate governance? In more cases than not, have capital markets been reduced to purely reflecting the underperformer reality of a large company as opposed to packing the bite that enforces change? Fragmented ownership is a factor. But is that it? There are numerous cases of an activist investors that have not met their primary objectives (I am not talking about activist investors whose primary objective is greenmail).
If we look at Friedman’s 3 points, and buy the fact that no team can consistently beat economic headwinds to provide massively outperforming returns, would you call private equity firms spectacular market timers? Gives you a simple screen- find a lag effect, and find a management team that’s already furiously at work to beat it, incentivize it to keep the boat steady, and voila! outperformer returns!
Consistent market timing? Really? A simple screen provides outperformer returns? Consistently?
Now, running a large enterprise that is suffering lag effects of a downturn takes some skill. At the simplest level, the private equity investor can certainly simulate an activist investor and provide senior management the backing it needs to rechannel energies from quarter to quarter window dressing into initiative that dovetail with the exit time frame. The private equity takeover can function as the step change that galvanizes the organization into focusing, even functioning as a hedgehog focused on a target.
Even these “operational improvements” count on:
existing management’s ability to direct, or shake up, existing relationships, or,
the investor’s ability to bring in people that can achieve the investor’s objectives.
Contingent upon incentives working, once the deal is struck, execution patterns and outcomes similar to Post Merger Integration efforts should dominate.
Stepping back, what are the patterns and markers that a private equity investor can use to manipulate the trade offs across financing, directed human capital (read operational improvements), and macroeconomic conditions to achieve outperformer returns?
The question’s underlying axiom is obvious; it is possible, with some consistency, to provider outperformer returns. You now also have a rudimentary structure (dare I say a quant model? :-)) to value the impact of these three components on final returns.
What do you think?
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Good Product Management and Delegation?
What does it mean to delegate as a Good Product Manager?
I found myself at a site on "Good Product Management" that recommended delegation as an important tool. This led to some discussion on what it means for a product manager to delegate responsibilities. Some bloggers were of the opinion that delegation is irrelevant to a product manager- he should be focused on helping others get their job done within an integrated product management framework.
I don't think the two viewpoints are different. They are really only approaching the same idea from different perspectives. Let me explain.
The Dynamic View: Fire, Fire Everywhere!
Having been involved in a massive product turnaround, I can attest to the fact that you will find ample opportunity to get sucked into fires (a reference to "The Goal"). These fires are not just specific high visibility issues, but also cases involving process variance/ risk factors where you have leaders defined and contingency plans in place. This is a dynamic view in product management reality.
Should you step into each case? What's the best way to do so? Or should you let the defined leader find a way? Should you step back and spend your time drafting "Integrated Product Management" processes for each exception?
The Static View: We Have a Magic Bullet!
At the other end of the product management spectrum, you risk complacency (we are only getting started here) when you think you have the right "chess pieces" with the right processes in place, when you are in a dynamic business environment that will unflinchingly sneak problems past your Product Management framework. This is the static view in product management reality.
A product manager may thrive with a static perspective of his role thanks to serendipity.
Dynamic Solutions to Dynamic Environments
While being a facilitator is important, a product manager is likely to find himself working toward building levers and an ecosystem that improves outcomes.
This is essentially change management. Similar to the decision making of a good general manager, who realizes the limitations of the environment he operates in, a good product manager will wisely exercise judgement in taking up tasks- even choosing tactical tasks- toward change.
What do you think?
I found myself at a site on "Good Product Management" that recommended delegation as an important tool. This led to some discussion on what it means for a product manager to delegate responsibilities. Some bloggers were of the opinion that delegation is irrelevant to a product manager- he should be focused on helping others get their job done within an integrated product management framework.
I don't think the two viewpoints are different. They are really only approaching the same idea from different perspectives. Let me explain.
The Dynamic View: Fire, Fire Everywhere!
Having been involved in a massive product turnaround, I can attest to the fact that you will find ample opportunity to get sucked into fires (a reference to "The Goal"). These fires are not just specific high visibility issues, but also cases involving process variance/ risk factors where you have leaders defined and contingency plans in place. This is a dynamic view in product management reality.
Should you step into each case? What's the best way to do so? Or should you let the defined leader find a way? Should you step back and spend your time drafting "Integrated Product Management" processes for each exception?
The Static View: We Have a Magic Bullet!
At the other end of the product management spectrum, you risk complacency (we are only getting started here) when you think you have the right "chess pieces" with the right processes in place, when you are in a dynamic business environment that will unflinchingly sneak problems past your Product Management framework. This is the static view in product management reality.
A product manager may thrive with a static perspective of his role thanks to serendipity.
Dynamic Solutions to Dynamic Environments
While being a facilitator is important, a product manager is likely to find himself working toward building levers and an ecosystem that improves outcomes.
This is essentially change management. Similar to the decision making of a good general manager, who realizes the limitations of the environment he operates in, a good product manager will wisely exercise judgement in taking up tasks- even choosing tactical tasks- toward change.
What do you think?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company
This case focuses highlighting, in sharp relief, how strategy and analytics, as tools to lay the groundwork for all that follows, can help in execution. For the tool savvy, I expect lightbulbs for strategy and analytics to flash every time we trigger a tripwire within the case.
The real skill here is in identifying all the tripwires you can trigger in a structured manner. i.e. Analytics backed solutions you can generate, and then rank them by impact.
Your inputs are welcome- have fun!
The usual case/ problem solving approach is top down:
Strategy-> Marketing-> Sales-> After Sales-> Customer Support
Here’s a case that will help you think recursively through this process!
The approach to this post is: Case -> (followed by) Key 1: Points to Discuss-> Key 2: Structure.
Note: This case is a Work in Progress. The keys will be published separately.
Case 1
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company
You have a $450 CyberSleek AB1 camera from The Consumer Electronics Company- their first CyberSleek, released in 2002. It has served you well over the years. You moved recently and lost the little USB cord that connects the camera to your laptop.
You search for the cord at the website in vain, and finally call The Consumer Electronics Company's support number to request a USB cord for your camera. Over a 45+ minute call, the customer support person creates your profile on the The Consumer Electronics Company website, keeps you on hold while searching for the correct USB cord, and finally gets you free shipping for the $20 cord as per the promotion run at that point of time.
Unfortunately, when you receive the package, you find that you were shipped the wrong make of the USB cord.
Thinking that customer support may not have the right tools to help you, you look to give the website another try. You go back to the site, struggle for over and hour and finally find your cord this time by eliminating, as an option, the one you were mistakenly sent. You order the new cord and have to pay shipping charges this time around for a total of $30 in charges.
You call back to claim a refund because customer service shipped the wrong cord to you, and are asked to ship the first cord back, at your own expense, to claim a refund. You have already been charged for the new cord you bought from the website. Requesting customer support to check these details does not help your case.
Shipping the first cord back, where you pay the $20 charges for the customer service mistake, does not make sense to you. You have spent enough time on this task already. The cord is useless with you anyway. Finally you relent. You request that atleast the shipping charges be borne by The Consumer Electronics Company. If you thought that should be easy- the customer support person will now have to contact another department to ensure you don't pay shipping charges.
You receive a standardized email about this conversation with customer support which miscategorizes the request and are requested to call another number.
When you call the next number, you have to explain the situation from scratch. You are now beginning to get frustrated. You want to talk to a supervisor regarding the quality of support you have received. You are put on hold and the call drops.
You call back the next day, and explain the process from scratch. You are finally advised that The Consumer Electronics Company will pay the charges for shipping back the incorrect cord sent to you. You demand to speak with someone who can take some action to alleviate the misery of going through this process. You believe you should also be refunded the shipping charges for the cord you bought yourself, because, it was, after all, customer support’s fault that you lost out on the promotion.
You are transferred to customer relations, where you explain the situation from scratch. Again. You mention that any customer who goes through this process will talk, even blog about it, and create a lot of negative publicity for the firm. Customer relations responds that they can do nothing more that pay the shipping charges for receiving the incorrect cord.
You are transferred back to customer support, where someone commiserates. You mention that you want action not commiseration. The whole process so far does not make sense from your point of view. Customer support agrees.
You go to FedEx and ship the cord incorrectly sent to you. Shipping is free. You receive the new cord for $30. $20 is credited to your account in a few days.
You are left wondering that you are a consumer of a $450 product and The Consumer Electronics Company put you through a lot of hassle for a $20 accessory.
The process seems un-American and un-East Asian to you. What are the things you would like this company do, in its own interest?
--
The real skill here is in identifying all the tripwires you can trigger in a structured manner. i.e. Analytics backed solutions you can generate, and then rank them by impact.
Your inputs are welcome- have fun!
The usual case/ problem solving approach is top down:
Strategy-> Marketing-> Sales-> After Sales-> Customer Support
Here’s a case that will help you think recursively through this process!
The approach to this post is: Case -> (followed by) Key 1: Points to Discuss-> Key 2: Structure.
Note: This case is a Work in Progress. The keys will be published separately.
Case 1
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company
You have a $450 CyberSleek AB1 camera from The Consumer Electronics Company- their first CyberSleek, released in 2002. It has served you well over the years. You moved recently and lost the little USB cord that connects the camera to your laptop.
You search for the cord at the website in vain, and finally call The Consumer Electronics Company's support number to request a USB cord for your camera. Over a 45+ minute call, the customer support person creates your profile on the The Consumer Electronics Company website, keeps you on hold while searching for the correct USB cord, and finally gets you free shipping for the $20 cord as per the promotion run at that point of time.
Unfortunately, when you receive the package, you find that you were shipped the wrong make of the USB cord.
Thinking that customer support may not have the right tools to help you, you look to give the website another try. You go back to the site, struggle for over and hour and finally find your cord this time by eliminating, as an option, the one you were mistakenly sent. You order the new cord and have to pay shipping charges this time around for a total of $30 in charges.
You call back to claim a refund because customer service shipped the wrong cord to you, and are asked to ship the first cord back, at your own expense, to claim a refund. You have already been charged for the new cord you bought from the website. Requesting customer support to check these details does not help your case.
Shipping the first cord back, where you pay the $20 charges for the customer service mistake, does not make sense to you. You have spent enough time on this task already. The cord is useless with you anyway. Finally you relent. You request that atleast the shipping charges be borne by The Consumer Electronics Company. If you thought that should be easy- the customer support person will now have to contact another department to ensure you don't pay shipping charges.
You receive a standardized email about this conversation with customer support which miscategorizes the request and are requested to call another number.
When you call the next number, you have to explain the situation from scratch. You are now beginning to get frustrated. You want to talk to a supervisor regarding the quality of support you have received. You are put on hold and the call drops.
You call back the next day, and explain the process from scratch. You are finally advised that The Consumer Electronics Company will pay the charges for shipping back the incorrect cord sent to you. You demand to speak with someone who can take some action to alleviate the misery of going through this process. You believe you should also be refunded the shipping charges for the cord you bought yourself, because, it was, after all, customer support’s fault that you lost out on the promotion.
You are transferred to customer relations, where you explain the situation from scratch. Again. You mention that any customer who goes through this process will talk, even blog about it, and create a lot of negative publicity for the firm. Customer relations responds that they can do nothing more that pay the shipping charges for receiving the incorrect cord.
You are transferred back to customer support, where someone commiserates. You mention that you want action not commiseration. The whole process so far does not make sense from your point of view. Customer support agrees.
You go to FedEx and ship the cord incorrectly sent to you. Shipping is free. You receive the new cord for $30. $20 is credited to your account in a few days.
You are left wondering that you are a consumer of a $450 product and The Consumer Electronics Company put you through a lot of hassle for a $20 accessory.
The process seems un-American and un-East Asian to you. What are the things you would like this company do, in its own interest?
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)