mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Fwd: More Moss

To: mgs@autox.team.net
Subject: Fwd: More Moss
From: Speedo79@aol.com
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:33:56 EST
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_921101635_boundary
Content-ID: <0_921101635@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>


Of course some people hope customers will raise their expectations of quality,
and send more purchases back so that we can make a killing when the "U-Hall
Moss-mobile" shows up at the swap-meets!!

Happy motoring!
Steve
Anybody know where can I get some returned No-Mex underwear?  <G>

--part0_921101635_boundary
Content-ID: <0_921101635@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <mgs-owner@autox.team.net>
Received: from  rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by
        air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:12:23
        -0500
Received: from triumph.cs.utah.edu (triumph.cs.utah.edu [155.99.188.52])
          by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
          with ESMTP id QAA00542;
          Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:12:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
        by triumph.cs.utah.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA04238;
        Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:08:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
        by triumph.cs.utah.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA04199
        for mgs-actors; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:08:00 -0700 (MST)
From: WSpohn4@aol.com
Message-ID: <eb990ca8.36e6deb0@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:05:52 EST
To: mgs@autox.team.net
Subject: More Moss
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 36
Sender: owner-mgs@autox.team.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: WSpohn4@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

<<The intent of any legitimate company is to supply a customer's wants
and needs whilst making enough profit to continue to stay in business.
Knowing what the customer wants, and being able to supply it effectively are
the difficult bits.>>

The other thing that factors in, Kelvin, is the desire or lack of it on the
customer's part for quality products.
Not much point in offering a really superior product if all you get for it is
the respect of the customers that you'd do such a thing, while they send their
dollars to your competitors for the cheap alternative.

Some of us want, (nay, demand) quality at a fair price, but many are content
to go through life in a second rate bargain basement sort of way, happy as
long as they think they are getting a "deal" and unaware of what real quality
is in any case. If most of your customers are 'cheapness above all else'
types, you'd go broke trying to cater to the top of the heap.

Tell me though, do you see any difference in attitude, and in willingness to
pay for quality, in, for instance, Jag owners, as opposed to MG owners?


Bill

--part0_921101635_boundary--

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>