Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Buying new digital camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Buying new digital camera

 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2013
On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 16:26:15 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
>the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.


That's a rather ambiguous statement to me. "Salesman training" means
training sales techniques...overcoming objections, closing the sale,
and that sort of thing. "Product training" is completely different.
It provides the sales person with knowledge about the products.

What I've found has been a mixed bag of product knowledge about
cameras in big box stores. Some sales people have been trained, so
some degree, by vendor reps who call on the stores. Some sales people
actually own cameras - as you might expect - and have a good general
knowledge. They may not be up-to-snuff on each brand's model, but
they can provide basic knowledge. Some, of course, are completely
clueless and just assigned to the department.

I happened to be in CompUSA this week when an Epson rep was in the
store. He'd been training the salespeople on Epson products and was
available to answer questions from customers. While this is not a
camera example, Nikon, Canon, and some of the other camera makers do
have vendor reps who travel around and work with salespeople.

>They're horrible salesmen. They know next to nothing about the equipment they
>carry, and less than nothing about the equipment they DON'T carry, they
>won't do any research for you, and have but the superflous comment to
>make about their products


True about some, not true about all. Some people are just naturally
motivated to be good at their job and some are not. It's the same
with customers. Some are the type to do some research on a product
before they hit the stores, and some don't.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > > Again, I am not talking about what may or may not be "adequate" to "most
> > > people". I am talking about a service level from a local merchant to get
> > > the product that best suits your needs. While in some instances that may
> > > end up being the lowest common denominator, most times it is not. A
> > > specific gear being "adequate" to "most people" is a good examples of
> > > "most people" not doing proper research, which is the basis of my entire
> > > point.

> >
> > So you're saying that if my mother before buying her Brownie Hawkeye had
> > done "proper research" she'd have bought a Hasselblad?

>
> All my comments have been about "most people" in 2013, your analogies
> from "yore" only apply as far as "adequateness" goes, not as far as
> possible choices goes. People today have more choice, as you know.


In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
really want more than that.

> > If it does what they want it to do and costs what they wanted to spend
> > then tney did research proper to their needs.

>
> My claim is that only one of those criteria is being met.


Which is not being met?

> Otherwise the
> word "adequate" wouldn't be used. If you use "adequate" to describe the
> camera, then it means that there is a camera that would fit better,
> which they would have known about had they done proper research.


Rolls Royce used to describe the power of their automobile engines as
"adequate". Adequate means just that.

> > This may come as a shock to you, but most people who buy cameras

want
> > something that produces mementos, they don't want great art.

>
> That does indeed come as a shock to me, given the fact that every single
> person I know are really happe when they manage to take a shot that has
> really god artistic value.


Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?

> In fact, the sheer popularity of instagram should tell you that people
> yearn after means to make some form of artistic statement with their
> otherwise dull "mementos".


What makes you think that they are after "artistic statement"?

> > The Brownie did that just fine. So will just about any digital
> > camera you buy today.

>
> Again, that is the definition of "adequate", which just proves my entire
> point. Again and again.


What point do you think that you are "proving"?

> > > > A modern digital camera needs to be exceedingly craptastic to not
> > > > beat those specs.
> > >
> > > ...for someone only trying to achieve adequateness.

> >
> > Which is what most people who buy cameras want.

>
> Of course not. Everyone buying something looks to get the most value for
> the money they spent, which rarely - if ever - is the same equipment
> that is defined as "adequate".


So let's see, a 150 buck camera is adequate but one that costs 1500
bucks is a better value for that purpose? You aren't a defense
contractor are you?

> > > > > But that's just *it*. The way they world works is in direct opposite to
> > > > > this. Valuing your customers amounts to nothing when they end up at the
> > > > > super stores to get the low prices they have there.
> > > >
> > > > If they end up at the super stores then they aren't your customer
> > >
> > > ...any longer. They WERE your customer. They're not any longer. Which is
> > > why you have to close your shop. It's not like all your customers just
> > > died suddenly.

> >
> > When they walk in it's up to you to close the sale.

>
> They're NOT walking in any longer.


Then customer service has no relevance.

> They're walking to the superstore.


Then quit whining about customer service and start whining about crappy
marketing.

> They left you.


No, they didn't. They may have left _somebody_ but I'm not a camera
store so they didn't leave _me_.

> In spite of your excellent customer service, in spite of
> your vast knowledge about cameras, in spite of you being a super likable
> person! In spite of the free coffee and biscuits you had in the

corner,
> in spite of everything! They left you because you *can't* compete on
> price with the super store and live. You can't. So they left you,
> because cheaper gear is more important than all the added value you
> added to the buying experience (with or without coffee). The general
> consumer values "adequateness" for a cheap buck over "perfect" from a
> knowledgable person for a couple of dollars more.


Which says that you deserve to go under because you could not add value
to your product sufficient to justify the higher price.

> > If you're not an effective closer you should start paying more
> > attention to salesmanship and less to the minute details of the
> > technical specifications of cameras.

>
> That's just backwards.


No, that's reality in sales. It's your job as a salesman to close the
sale.

> Not one single person in the camera department in
> the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.


And they have the advantage of effective marketing which gives them
enough numbers that they don't have to as high a percentage of sales.

> They're
> horrible salesmen. They know next to nothing about the equipment they
> carry, and less than nothing about the equipment they DON'T carry, they
> won't do any research for you, and have but the superflous comment to
> make about their products. They're the anti-salesmen! Yet the sheer
> number that go through these departments means they sell mroe cameras
> per day than a small store would sell in a week. In *spite* of being
> horrible salesmen.


So go work there if you don't want to have to be an effective closer to
stay in business.

> > > > Do they go into the small scale stores at all?
> > >
> > > Increasingly less.

> >
> > If they don't go in at all then how such stores might treat them is
> > irrelevant.

>
> We're talking about past tense - they're dying out, remember? It's how
> they *treated* them.


Treaated who? What percentage of the people you are talking about has
ever been in any of the stores whose loss you are lamenting?

> > If you aren't closing the sale you have problems with your
> > salesmanship

>
> This is just plain out incorrect, as outlined above.


And thus you are starving and the big boxes are thriving.

> > I look at the web sites for the local camera stores and if I didn't
> > alreaady have a relationship with them there is nothing in those sites
> > that made me want to visit them.

>
> You should go to the superstores then! I'm sure they can help you...
> Haha.


And so you further dig your own grave. Instead of telling people "well
go to the big box store", how about you FIX YOUR EFFING WEB SITE ya lazy
bum!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > All my comments have been about "most people" in 2013, your analogies
> > from "yore" only apply as far as "adequateness" goes, not as far as
> > possible choices goes. People today have more choice, as you know.

>
> In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
> Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
> really want more than that.


As I've explained, this isn't true.

> > > If it does what they want it to do and costs what they wanted to spend
> > > then tney did research proper to their needs.

> >
> > My claim is that only one of those criteria is being met.

>
> Which is not being met?


"It does what they want it to do".

> > Otherwise the word "adequate" wouldn't be used. If you use
> > "adequate" to describe the camera, then it means that there is a
> > camera that would fit better, which they would have known about had
> > they done proper research.

>
> Rolls Royce used to describe the power of their automobile engines as
> "adequate". Adequate means just that.


Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.

> > That does indeed come as a shock to me, given the fact that every single
> > person I know are really happe when they manage to take a shot that has
> > really god artistic value.

>
> Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?


Not really.

> > In fact, the sheer popularity of instagram should tell you that people
> > yearn after means to make some form of artistic statement with their
> > otherwise dull "mementos".

>
> What makes you think that they are after "artistic statement"?


Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
effect.

> > > The Brownie did that just fine. So will just about any digital
> > > camera you buy today.

> >
> > Again, that is the definition of "adequate", which just proves my entire
> > point. Again and again.

>
> What point do you think that you are "proving"?


That adequate isn't perfect. That users could find the perfect camera by
either doing proper research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e.
not a superstore).

> > Of course not. Everyone buying something looks to get the most value for
> > the money they spent, which rarely - if ever - is the same equipment
> > that is defined as "adequate".

>
> So let's see, a 150 buck camera is adequate but one that costs 1500
> bucks is a better value for that purpose? You aren't a defense
> contractor are you?


I didn't make this numbers up, you did. I can't comment on numbers you
make up.

I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.

> > > When they walk in it's up to you to close the sale.

> >
> > They're NOT walking in any longer.

>
> Then customer service has no relevance.


My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?

> > They're walking to the superstore.

>
> Then quit whining about customer service and start whining about crappy
> marketing.


*rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?

> > They left you.

>
> No, they didn't. They may have left _somebody_ but I'm not a camera
> store so they didn't leave _me_.


"you" in *both our examples* refer to the general "you" as in the camera
store owner. You used the same figurative "you" in your example above:

"When they walk in it's up to you to close the sale"

> > In spite of your excellent customer service, in spite of your vast
> > knowledge about cameras, in spite of you being a super likable
> > person! In spite of the free coffee and biscuits you had in the
> > corner, in spite of everything! They left you because you *can't*
> > compete on price with the super store and live. You can't. So they
> > left you, because cheaper gear is more important than all the added
> > value you added to the buying experience (with or without coffee).
> > The general consumer values "adequateness" for a cheap buck over
> > "perfect" from a knowledgable person for a couple of dollars more.

>
> Which says that you deserve to go under because you could not add value
> to your product sufficient to justify the higher price.


Incorrect. The added value was more than adequate. The consumers choose
no added value and slightly lower prices to end up with merely
"adequate" products.

> > > If you're not an effective closer you should start paying more
> > > attention to salesmanship and less to the minute details of the
> > > technical specifications of cameras.

> >
> > That's just backwards.

>
> No, that's reality in sales. It's your job as a salesman to close the
> sale.


It's still backwards, given the fact that I wrote about in the next part
of my paragraph with you cut up and responded to only one part first:

> > Not one single person in the camera department in
> > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

>
> And they have the advantage of effective marketing which gives them
> enough numbers that they don't have to as high a percentage of sales.


What - so it's no longer a reality in sales that salesmanship is an
important part of closing the sales? Nice 180 there!

> > They're horrible salesmen. They know next to nothing about the
> > equipment they carry, and less than nothing about the equipment
> > they DON'T carry, they won't do any research for you, and have but
> > the superflous comment to make about their products. They're the
> > anti-salesmen! Yet the sheer number that go through these
> > departments means they sell mroe cameras per day than a small store
> > would sell in a week. In *spite* of being horrible salesmen.

>
> So go work there if you don't want to have to be an effective closer to
> stay in business.


Why should I go work there? What are you on about?

> > > If they don't go in at all then how such stores might treat them is
> > > irrelevant.

> >
> > We're talking about past tense - they're dying out, remember? It's how
> > they *treated* them.

>
> Treaated who?


The *CUSTOMERS*. My god. Who did you think, Elvis Presley?

> What percentage of the people you are talking about has
> ever been in any of the stores whose loss you are lamenting?


100% given the fact that the superstores didn't exist not long ago.

> > You should go to the superstores then! I'm sure they can help you...
> > Haha.

>
> And so you further dig your own grave. Instead of telling people "well
> go to the big box store", how about you FIX YOUR EFFING WEB SITE ya lazy
> bum!


Wtf? Do you think I own a store? I have repeatedly talked about
superstores and small scale stores from the perspective of a consumer.
Whatever gave you the idea that I owned a store? Why won't you read?


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
James Silverton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 7/4/2013 6:26 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> James Silverton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2013 1:54 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> In article <kqsqi1$egs$(E-Mail Removed)>, James Silverton
>>>> says...
>>>>> An optical viewfinder beats guessing at just what you are photographing
>>>>> in bright light.


>>>> But you are not guessing - you are framing with the LCD
>>>> screen.


>>> Not if the screen is mostly a gray blur.


>> Charged batteries help.


>>>> Besides, there are no viewfinders for a 20x zoom compact
>>>> camera.


>>> If there were a 20x zoom compact camera, I doubt it would be inexpensive
>>> or small.


>> http://geizhals.de/?cat=dcam&xf=70_20&sort=p
>> <100 EUR
>> http://geizhals.de/?cat=dcam&sort=p&...1079_28#xf_top
>> 105x60x25mm


>> You're out of date by a decade or so.


> Not as of a week ago when I persuaded a camera store to let me take a
> $150 Nikon outside.


I'm puzzled. Did I somewhere imply "there is no compat camera
that doesn't have 20x zoom"? Or did your store clerk not
have any 20x cameras and therfore there are none?

Or what does wour sentence mean?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-07-04 03:18:17 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> I understand that. My main point about AAs is that you can buy
>>> regular AAs just about anywhere and use them in a pinch. That may
>>> save a special moment or a necessary business shot.

[...]
>> Noone ever asks what happens if your storage medium is full,
>> though, which --- unless you have time to delete photos and
>> *can* delete these photos --- is just as fun.


> If that happens you haven't planned your photo safari very well.


My argument being that this is just as true with running out
of power ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
> the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.


Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.
If they manage to get some training in their own time, they
are immediately fired.

And of course Sandman has tested every salesman in every
superstore everywhere in the sun system.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
> > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

>
> Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.


Exactly.

> If they manage to get some training in their own time, they
> are immediately fired.


Eh, ok?

> And of course Sandman has tested every salesman in every
> superstore everywhere in the sun system.


Nope. Why would you think that? Are you trolling? Making absurd
statements with the motive of discrediting my claim? Wouldn't a
counter-claim be more effective? It may reflect better on you at least.



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:53:34 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> > That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
>> > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

>>
>> Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.

>
>Exactly.


If ever there was a case for emoticons, silly as they may be, this is
it.

I took Wolfgang's comment to be sarcasm. Is Sandman's reply a
"whoosh" or also sarcasm?

>
>> If they manage to get some training in their own time, they
>> are immediately fired.

>
>Eh, ok?


Must have been a "whoosh".

>> And of course Sandman has tested every salesman in every
>> superstore everywhere in the sun system.

>
>Nope. Why would you think that? Are you trolling? Making absurd
>statements with the motive of discrediting my claim? Wouldn't a
>counter-claim be more effective? It may reflect better on you at least.


What is the difference, on the absurdity meter, between "Not one
single person in the camera department in the superstores has
undergone any form of salesman training" and "tested every salesman in
every superstore everywhere"?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > > All my comments have been about "most people" in 2013, your analogies
> > > from "yore" only apply as far as "adequateness" goes, not as far as
> > > possible choices goes. People today have more choice, as you know.

> >
> > In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
> > Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
> > really want more than that.

>
> As I've explained, this isn't true.


In your circle of acquaintances maybe.

> > > > If it does what they want it to do and costs what they wanted to spend
> > > > then tney did research proper to their needs.
> > >
> > > My claim is that only one of those criteria is being met.

> >
> > Which is not being met?

>
> "It does what they want it to do".


What, specifically, that they want it to do, does it not do?

> > > Otherwise the word "adequate" wouldn't be used. If you use
> > > "adequate" to describe the camera, then it means that there is a
> > > camera that would fit better, which they would have known about had
> > > they done proper research.

> >
> > Rolls Royce used to describe the power of their automobile engines as
> > "adequate". Adequate means just that.

>
> Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
> weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
> forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
> just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
> weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.


And thus the engines were adequate. You seem to think that everything
should be done to excess. By your logic since the Saturn V was merely
"adequate" NASA should have waited until they knew how to build a warp-
engine interstellar spacecraft before going to the Moon. Since Little
Boy was merely adequate to flatten Hiroshima, the US Army Air Corps
should have waited until Teller had the Super perfected before finishing
off Japan. Since the forces that were used to invade Europe were merely
adequate, the US and the British should have held off the invasion until
their forces were overwhelming, and let the Russians have the place.

> > > That does indeed come as a shock to me, given the fact that every single
> > > person I know are really happe when they manage to take a shot that has
> > > really god artistic value.

> >
> > Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?

>
> Not really.


Then consider it.

> > > In fact, the sheer popularity of instagram should tell you that people
> > > yearn after means to make some form of artistic statement with their
> > > otherwise dull "mementos".

> >
> > What makes you think that they are after "artistic statement"?

>
> Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
> artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
> they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
> effect.


Nope, I have no interest in "instagram". And adding filters does not
mean that one is looking to be the next Ansel Adams.

> > > > The Brownie did that just fine. So will just about any digital
> > > > camera you buy today.
> > >
> > > Again, that is the definition of "adequate", which just proves my entire
> > > point. Again and again.

> >
> > What point do you think that you are "proving"?

>
> That adequate isn't perfect.


Oh, I see. Well, there is no camera on the market today that is
"perfect". If perfection is the only acceptable standard for you you
are doomed to a life of disappointment and I pity you.

> That users could find the perfect camera by
> either doing proper research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e.
> not a superstore).


Since, according to you, there is a "perfect camera", why don't you save
us all a bunch of time by telling us what it is?

> > > Of course not. Everyone buying something looks to get the most value for
> > > the money they spent, which rarely - if ever - is the same equipment
> > > that is defined as "adequate".

> >
> > So let's see, a 150 buck camera is adequate but one that costs 1500
> > bucks is a better value for that purpose? You aren't a defense
> > contractor are you?

>
> I didn't make this numbers up, you did. I can't comment on numbers you
> make up.


So tell us what this highly cost effective perfect camera _does_ cost.

> I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
> being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
> if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.


So let's see, your budget is 150 bucks and you are going to find a
perfect camera in that budget? Good luck.

> > > > When they walk in it's up to you to close the sale.
> > >
> > > They're NOT walking in any longer.

> >
> > Then customer service has no relevance.

>
> My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?


I did. You said they aren't walking in. If they aren't walking in then
they get no opportunity to experience your customer service, so it
becomes irrelevant.

> > > They're walking to the superstore.

> >
> > Then quit whining about customer service and start whining about crappy
> > marketing.

>
> *rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?


So ever store in the world is closed now?

> > > They left you.

> >
> > No, they didn't. They may have left _somebody_ but I'm not a camera
> > store so they didn't leave _me_.

>
> "you" in *both our examples* refer to the general "you" as in the camera
> store owner. You used the same figurative "you" in your example above:
>
> "When they walk in it's up to you to close the sale"


Up to you, the generic salesman.

> > > In spite of your excellent customer service, in spite of your vast
> > > knowledge about cameras, in spite of you being a super likable
> > > person! In spite of the free coffee and biscuits you had in the
> > > corner, in spite of everything! They left you because you *can't*
> > > compete on price with the super store and live. You can't. So they
> > > left you, because cheaper gear is more important than all the added
> > > value you added to the buying experience (with or without coffee).
> > > The general consumer values "adequateness" for a cheap buck over
> > > "perfect" from a knowledgable person for a couple of dollars more.

> >
> > Which says that you deserve to go under because you could not add value
> > to your product sufficient to justify the higher price.

>
> Incorrect. The added value was more than adequate.


The customers apparently did not agree with this assessment. They
probably got tired of being harangued about how they needed the
nonexistent perfect camera instead of the one that was adequate and
available.

> The consumers choose
> no added value and slightly lower prices to end up with merely
> "adequate" products.


In which case you are not adding value.

> > > > If you're not an effective closer you should start paying more
> > > > attention to salesmanship and less to the minute details of the
> > > > technical specifications of cameras.
> > >
> > > That's just backwards.

> >
> > No, that's reality in sales. It's your job as a salesman to close the
> > sale.

>
> It's still backwards, given the fact that I wrote about in the next part
> of my paragraph with you cut up and responded to only one part first:
>
> > > Not one single person in the camera department in
> > > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

> >
> > And they have the advantage of effective marketing which gives them
> > enough numbers that they don't have to as high a percentage of sales.

>
> What - so it's no longer a reality in sales that salesmanship is an
> important part of closing the sales? Nice 180 there!


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about operating a business, not
showing how cleverly we can twist words. I am beginning to understand
why your camera store went under. I would have walked in, had one
conversation such as this, decided that you were an annoying loon, and
left never to come back.

The job of a salesman is to sell. The job of a clerk is to process
payments. Big Box stores do not rely on salesmen, they rely on
marketing and volume. The people you seem to be conflating with
salesmen are clerks whose job is to take your money and bag your
product--they are no more expected to be experts than the person at the
checkout counter at the supermarket is expected to be a Cordon Bleu
chef.

But you want to run a locally owned small camera shop. That means that
you cannot rely on volume like the big box stores do. So you have to
close a high percentage of the people who walk in. From your bitterness
it appears that you couldn't be assed to do that and lost your business
as a result.

> > > They're horrible salesmen. They know next to nothing about the
> > > equipment they carry, and less than nothing about the equipment
> > > they DON'T carry, they won't do any research for you, and have but
> > > the superflous comment to make about their products. They're the
> > > anti-salesmen! Yet the sheer number that go through these
> > > departments means they sell mroe cameras per day than a small store
> > > would sell in a week. In *spite* of being horrible salesmen.

> >
> > So go work there if you don't want to have to be an effective closer to
> > stay in business.

>
> Why should I go work there? What are you on about?


You're whining about how the clerks at Best Buy and the like don't have
to close sales like the salesmen at the smaller stores do. So you would
likely be happier working as one of those clerks and not being expected
to close sales.
>
> > > > If they don't go in at all then how such stores might treat them is
> > > > irrelevant.
> > >
> > > We're talking about past tense - they're dying out, remember? It's how
> > > they *treated* them.

> >
> > Treaated who?

>
> The *CUSTOMERS*. My god. Who did you think, Elvis Presley?


But the customers don't go into the store, according to you, so how do
the stores "treat" them at all? Do they send gangs out to accost them
on the street in another part of town or something?

> > What percentage of the people you are talking about has
> > ever been in any of the stores whose loss you are lamenting?

>
> 100% given the fact that the superstores didn't exist not long ago.


100 percent of the public has been going to small local camera stores?
Do tell.

My Dad got his Argus at Macys. My mother got her Brownie at the Navy
Exchange. Sears and Pennys and Montgomery Ward always had camera
departments. Most pharmacies had film sales and processing as long as I
can remember, and generally had some cameras on display.

If you think that the small local camera shops have been going without
competition until all of sudden Big Bad Best Buy came on the scene, you
really weren't paying much attention.

> > > You should go to the superstores then! I'm sure they can help you...
> > > Haha.

> >
> > And so you further dig your own grave. Instead of telling people "well
> > go to the big box store", how about you FIX YOUR EFFING WEB SITE ya lazy
> > bum!

>
> Wtf? Do you think I own a store?


You're acting very defensive for someone who does not and never had.

> I have repeatedly talked about
> superstores and small scale stores from the perspective of a consumer.
> Whatever gave you the idea that I owned a store? Why won't you read?


Oh, that explains all the bullshit about "perfect cameras".


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:53:34 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> > That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
>>> > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.


>>> Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.


>>Exactly.


> If ever there was a case for emoticons, silly as they may be, this is
> it.


Sarcasm that the censor understands is too obvious.


> I took Wolfgang's comment to be sarcasm.


Is there any other way one can read that when one lives with
some internet access?


-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommendations & Experiences with Buying Digital Camera from I Buy Digital Harpocrates Digital Photography 1 01-25-2005 11:13 PM
Buying a digital camera Chris Computer Support 17 05-19-2004 04:58 PM
Guidance on a buying a new digital camera Andy Munnis Digital Photography 3 10-06-2003 06:14 PM
buying a new digital camera vidhu Digital Photography 14 09-02-2003 07:58 PM
buying a new digital camera ? Missie Digital Photography 6 08-19-2003 11:37 PM



Advertisments