[Rhodes22-list] general boat's complaint (continued)

Sun Jul 26 13:28:35 EDT 2009

Stan,

Ben has a good point.  We have never seen the "Loyalty/Royalty" program
spelled out and who is obligated to abide by it.

I for one, when I want to fix or improve my boat, contact you first.  That's
because you always provide "free" advice, even though I didn't buy my boat
from you.  If you advise me that you are the unique source for what I want,
then I will buy it from you.  If not, then I'll buy it from whomever is
cheaper, more convenient, or better suits my taste.  That's just consumer
freedom of choice; part of the Capitalist Manifesto.

If you have intellectual property disputes with competitors for my business,
I believe we live in a society with adequate laws to protect your rights.
And I think you have already demonstrated that.  In other words, my interest
in you staying in business to provide me with "free" advice and unique parts
is adequately served without my active involvement when you have competitor
disputes.

After spending many years helping major corporations automate their customer
relationship management, here's some free advice for you.  Your "free"
advice is really CRM, and CRM is a legitimate business expense.  Perhaps
your accountant hasn't been taking that into consideration, adequately.

Rick

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM, BenCittadino <bencittadino at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Stan;
>
> I'm getting confused. As you know I bought a '93 Rhodes that you recycled
> last year ('08). Elton delivered it to me in NJ and my family and I have
> been having a ball with your wonderful boat. I told you I served on a
> Philip
> Rhodes-designed minesweeper (MSO 440, USS Exploit) in the early '70s so I
> feel like I've come full circle back to the sea in my "soon to be
> golden"years.
>
> Anyway, when I bought the boat I knew about what I thought was your
> loyalty/royalty program which involved using General Boats to sell my boat
> when the time came so you could recycle it again and/or earn a 5%
> commission
> on the sale.
>
> Of course, lately following the list I understand you are unhappy about Art
> making and selling a Pop-Top enclosure that competes with yours. Apparently
> you and Art had some kind of arrangement that didn't work out and that is
> an
> issue between you folks that I hope you can work out.
>
> What is confusing is, what else don't you want loyal GB people to buy from
> non-GB sources? Clearly people have gotten engines and sails from other
> places with your blessing. You installed a compass, fishfinder/depthfinder,
> and marine radio that I acquired elsewhere for me. I recently contacted you
> about getting a custom winter boat cover and you referred me elsewhere. So
> exactly what is your policy? Please make it clear in your follow-up email
> because as least as far as this rookie is concerned it isn't clear now.
> Please remember, many of us have come in late and don't know the whole
> story
> (Not an invitation to tell the whole story, just tell us what you want).
>
> Best to Rose and Elton;
>
> BenCittadino
> SV Susan Kay (93 recycled 08)
> Highlands, NJ
>
> stanleyl wrote:
> >
> > Rose and I want to thank you all for indulging GB in the use of your
> forum
> > on an issue that is so basic to GB.
> >
> > We want to thank those that take issue with our position but attempt to
> be
> > evenhanded.  (If academically interested, we can provide exhibits and
> > witnesses that prove the accuracy of our facts.)
> >
> > We are empathetic with those who chafe at this sort of thing and remain
> > silent - in our younger days we probably would have done the same.   It
> > was not until 50 that we adopted our tribe's slogan of  "never again" and
> > took on anyone who wronged us:  A policeman.  A lawyer.  a station wagon
> > full of nuns (just kidding about the station wagon), a giant corporation
> > to docketing at the US Supreme Court.   We prevailed in all these pro se
> > actions simply because we do not complain unless the facts and logic are
> > solidly on our side - but we digress.
> >
> > And, in particular, we want to thank those who understand the logical
> side
> > of our position and offered suggestions.
> >
> >
> > Re the issue of the Loyalty/Royalty program:   Its reasoning seems so
> > correct that it is hard to comprehend dissent.  Those thinking us crazy
> > for such radical thinking have to sit in this chair for just one day.
> > Interestingly, dissenters enjoy products from many segments of industry
> > who have already worked out such support programs, yet these dissenters
> > seem to be drawing their own grandfather clause line as to which
> > industries should not be entitled to residuals on their efforts.   Those
> > in this group have but to request and we will expand on the good sense of
> > this program.   It has been emotionally gratifying seeing former members
> > of the "You must be crazy" society, when, becoming members of the "List"
> > family, seeing the light and converting.
> >
> > Re the issue of the 50 years creating a unique product now having others
> > take bites of its parts for their unilateral gain, if not resolved, will
> > come home to bite us all.   ( When I walked out of the hallowed halls of
> > ole PU I vowed not to go into business because I could not stand the
> > ethics I saw, and assumed, had to go with that territory.  But it was
> > pre-ordained; I ended up spending most of my life a driving capitalist.
> > And it has been a blast, for me and my partner of 60 years - because we
> > made the making of money our secondary goal.   (The effects of that kind
> > of religious fervor has surprisingly turned out to be rough on our
> > opponents.)   There are ways we can go to stop the taking of free bites
> of
> > the profitable parts side of GB's business::
> >
> > When we sold Venture Sailboats (Macgregor), dealers could buy sails
> > elsewhere and make an additional profit on Roger's creation at Roger's
> > expense.  Roger, who graduated at the top of his class at Stamford,
> simply
> > raised the price of his boat and included sails.  Being the tough
> business
> > man he is, he did it without notice and dealers had to eat their sail
> > inventories they bought elsewhere.  We are slow learners but could price
> > Rhodes sales to include a part an outside seller has latched onto.    Or,
> >
> > We could simply be unresponsive to boat owners who purchase parts, unique
> > to the Rhodes design, from others in competition with GB or who fail to
> > honor agreements with GB.   We inherently do not like this retaliatory
> > type of solution, but it is a solution.   Or
> >
> > We could simply close shop and that would close the market for
> > unauthorized parts vendors.   This "cutting off ones nose" solution is
> not
> > our choice.  However, not taking on rogue suppliers, eating away at the
> > life cash flow of the company, makes it an inevitable solution.
> >
> >
> > In an effort to avoid any of the above solutions, based on the thinking
> of
> > List members in this particular complaint of GB vs. Art C, we have some
> > proposals that we will present to the List next week for your appreciated
> > feedback.  The pro bono time we are having to devote to the problems and
> > questions of private sale Rhodes is becoming so overwhelming (and we hate
> > to be mean spirited enough to tell them where to go) that we just can't
> > seem to manage all of this issue in one sitting.
> >
> > ss
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/general-boat%27s-complaint-%28continued%29-tp24660048p24662931.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>