Give Them What They Pay For: Support

The old saying that “you get what you pay for” can be read a few different ways:

  -  A description of the way life works
  -  A motto for merchants to reassure their customers
  -  A consumer demand

If you’re selling a high-end or advanced product that’s more expensive than the alternatives, you’d better make this your promise to customers.

In today’s market, when people pay more, they believe they're buying more than just a better product: they feel the price includes manufacturer support.  They expect customer service they can talk to.  They believe that they’ve paid for technical support they can reach easily, understand, and get useful answers from.  They want confidence that the high-end performance of the product is assured by the price they’ve paid, and support is an integral part of that assurance.

If I buy a bag of ordinary portland cement and I have a problem with it, I figure I’m pretty much on my own.  If I buy a high-end specialty cement, I expect the manufacturer’s Technical Support will help get me out of any problems I have with the product.

A reputation for good customer support is valuable.  It supports the high price of your product.  It's not that easy to establish, but in today's hyperconnected society, it's very easy to destroy.  You need to get your support operation in top shape, and you need to monitor and manage your reputation online in the social media sphere.

Sometimes you have to go the extra mile to establish that rep.  The most impressive example I’ve seen recently is Apple Computer.  Apple sells the top end of personal computers, smartphones and music players.  They charge a pretty big buck, but they have a reputation for well-designed, well made products and killer customer service.

In November, 2011, Apple issued a recall of the 1st generation iPod Nano, a device they stopped making in 2006.  The recall was based on a (rare) problem with the battery overheating.  They promsied to replace the old Nanos.

I sent my old Nano in, and about a month later, I received a replacement: a new 6th generation Nano, a far more advanced gadget with 4X the memory, a radio and a voice recorder built in, and all in a package 1/3 the size of my old one.

Now, I know incontrovertibly that Apple stands behind their stuff.  I know that if I pay more for an Apple product, I won’t get a piece of crap, and I won’t be on my own if it fails because of something Apple did wrong.  If I’m a value shopper, I know that Apple’s high price is also high value.

All high-end manufacturers need to convert their potential customers into value shoppers.  Educating them about the value of the product (i.e. sales & marketing) is one way.  Creating the confidence that the company will support that value in the future is the other.

Thanks, Apple, both for the Nano and the marketing lesson.

Our Cumulative Achievement

Every time it rains heavily enough to make noise on the window – which is not very often in L.A. – I am reminded of standing on the roof of my house with my long-suffering real estate agent the day we closed escrow.  The roof had acknowledged leaks, and we were hurriedly spreading a tarp in a fierce downpour.  That was the day I learned what a tough job roofs do every day, the moment I really began to appreciate what it means to have a roof over your head.

At a time of year when thoughts often turn towards both appreciation for the blessings we’ve got, and assessment of what we’ve achieved, I would like to put in a word of praise for the blessing and the achievement represented by the Built Environment.  It’s hard to find a better example of the method by which the human race grows as a species, and how far we’ve taken that growth.

We grow by being able to accumulate knowledge and capabilities across generations, by being able to quantify and record what we learn, and transmit it beyond the span of our individual years.  From the time when people first realized that caves weren’t going to be enough, we have been accumulating the skill of transforming our environment to adapt it to us, the short-circuit of the evolutionary process.

For an illuminating example of this achievement, one could look to the great pyramid at Chichen Itza, the Temple of Kukulkan, also known as El Castillo.  Standing 98 feet tall, it is actually a shell built over a previous pyramid, which itself was built over the original pyramid.

I once visited the inner pyramid.  It’s not on the regular tour, but we had heard it existed.  We were standing outside the pyramid when my wife saw a park employee going into a little door under the most fully-restored of the four grand staircases.  She ran up and asked if that was the way to the inner pyramid, and he agreed to take us up.

Within the door, we were in a dimly lit, low-ceilinged stone chamber.  The steps of the previous pyramid stretched upwards like a narrow, rising tunnel.  The stone treads were worn as deep as an inch in some places.  The walls sweated with little blobs of moisture that glistened in the light of the bare 40 watt bulbs strung along the ceiling.

We raced up the stairs like they were on fire, tremendously excited by this weirdly threatening place.  We arrived gasping at the top to realize that, while the Mexican government had done a great thing excavating this path and stringing the electric lights, they might have been well advised to install ventilation, as well.  We already used up most of the oxygen in the place. 

Soon our gasping turned to gaping.  Before us stood a large sculpture of a jaguar (one of the gods worshipped at this site during one of its several changes of ownership), colored bright red, with three large stylized spots made of a green stone that looked like jade.  Its back was flattened in a way that strongly suggested it was a sacrificial altar.

The tiny chamber we stood in had once been the exposed top platform of the previous pyramid.  The tiny room in front of us was the previous inner temple. I reflected how much grander the current top platform and inner temple – above our heads – were, how the capabilities of these people to move, shape and build with stone had advanced from one civilization to the next. Within this man-made stone cavern was the reflection of one large page in the story of civilization, written over hundreds of years.  Then, the page turned, but the building that characterized it lived on.

I looked upwards and realized we were beneath tons of stone, and I had no idea what was holding them up.  Yet I had confidently taken my life in my hands and raced up that staircase in complete faith that whatever held them up was going to perform as expected.

Not to belabor an obvious symbol, but all of the built environment is constructed on top of the achievements of the past.

One could examine the latest and greatest architectural and engineering achievements to understand how far we’ve come.  A modern building has so many different kinds of technology that make it perform.  It protects its occupants and contents against wind, water, fire, and earthquake. It provides locations for all manner of human endeavor.  It modifies the (interior) weather.  It gives light in the darkness.  It has hot and cold running water.  It transmits communications.  And there are so many levels of concept embodied in it that allow it to serve the functions required of it.  It is logical.  It is expressive.  It offers the visitor a multi-sensory experience.  It creates functional spaces.  It provides confidence, comfort, safety, and security.

I would suggest, however, that perhaps the most illuminating example of what “cumulative achievement” really means, in terms of the built environment, is the network of standards that have been developed for construction and for building materials.  Those standards represent the length, breadth, and extraordinary depth of our knowledge, but that’s not all.  They represent our commitment to accumulating, quantifying, and transmitting our knowledge and hard-won achievements.  They further represent our commitment to our fellow human beings, to provide reliable structures for today and the future. After all, we pass along not only the knowledge, but the buildings themselves.  The inner pyramid at Chichen Itza, for example, is over 1500 years old.

Construction standards are, I believe, our most sincere expression of pride in our work, our determination as an industry to do the right thing on every project, and to continue thousands of years of advancement.

People who work in the construction industry are part of one of the signal endeavors of our species.  We have a right to be proud.  We have a responsibility to be careful, thorough, and to work by the rules, because we are, quite literally, building the world.

Wingspread Precautionary Principle

Designers are often faced with a dilemma when considering adoptions of a new product with putative environmental advantages instead of an established product with known environmental detriments. Even if the new product manufacturer has conducted extensive testing and offers independent verification of claims, the new product cannot match the track record of a product that has been proven in the field and tested by time.

I have recently become familiar with the Wingspread Conference, a gathering of scientists, philosophers, lawyers and environmental activists, that reached agreement on the necessity of the "Precautionary Principle" in environmental decision-making. The key element of the principle addresses the trade-offs that designers face in the absence of certainty about long term performance:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

The Principle suggests that it can be acceptable to use a new product, even if there is no certainty about long term performance.

Note that this is not a free ticket to use to market any new product. The Principle also states:

"...the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof."

This means that the manufacturer of a new product must provide rigorous and transparent evidence that the new product does indeed have a lower environmental impact than the one it is attempting to supplant.

The full text of the statement follows:

Wingspread Consensus Statement on Precautionary Principle
The release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of resources, and physical alterations of the environment have had substantial unintended consequences affecting human health and the environment. Some of these concerns are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer, birth defects and species extinctions; along with global climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and worldwide contamination with toxic substances and nuclear materials.

We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions, particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect adequately human health and the environment - the larger system of which humans are but a part.

We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and the worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new principles for conducting human activities are necessary.

While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.

Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

The Rewards of Construction Writing

I like what I do.  Writing about construction materials is a quest.  I’m lucky to make my living dong something that’s a quest, because it keeps the work interesting.  And the quest is no minor thing: it’s the quest for the future.

One of the enduring constants of the construction industry is its resistance to change, due in large part to the high risks and liabilities attached to construction.  Designers and contractors are dis-incentivized by our system to try new or innovative techniques and materials: if anything goes wrong, the financial and career damage can be severe.  So there is a tendency to avoid anything new until the risk has been run and avoided by somebody else – that is, until it’s not new anymore.  If everyone follows that M.O., nothing can ever change or improve.

In other industries, a material or technique that costs less, is easier to use, and improves performance over the existing choices would be adopted quickly.  In construction, the rare material that meets those criteria still has a huge hurdle of credibility to overcome.  The spectre of failure, and the liabilities accompanying it, looms large.

It is, therefore, one of the prime missions of the construction journalism, not only to report on the arrival of new technologies and ideas, but to explain them.  A new technology’s potential for progress will only be realized if designers, contractors and owners are given the opportunity to understand current methods and the issues they raise, as well as how a new solution meets old needs in a better way.  Just giving a prose version of the sale pitch is not enough.  Simply explaining “what it does” is not enough. A real evaluation of a new option requires knowing “how it does it.”  Claims need proofs, and limitations need to be defined. The actors in the construction drama must develop confidence in anything new before they’ll leave the safety of the tried and true, and confidence comes only from knowledge and understanding.

Many of the most progressive strides in construction today are towards sustainable methods and materials.  An honest discussion of sustainability often entails demystifying science that’s well outside the immediate concerns of the industry.  It sometimes means unraveling popular misconceptions.  It means avoiding greenwashing, and sometimes calling out greenwashing that’s being done in that area of business.  One of the welcome aspects of writing about sustainable technologies is repeated discovery that the aspects that make them sustainable are frequently the same aspects that make them more affordable or higher-performing.

If, and only if, we explain new ideas accurately and comprehensively, they can be evaluated on their merits and not on the basis of ignorance and fear.

One of the services that construction journalism provides to the design community is a better understanding of conditions and practices on the jobsite.  Case Studies become a conduit for sharing lessons learned.  By closing the gap between studio and field, between theory and practice, we may be helping reduce the frictions and misunderstandings that make construction more difficult and risky. We like to think that spreading knowledge of what is being done, and what can be done, across the construction industry helps make it more of a community.

What California's Green Building Code means to building product manufacturers

This week , the California Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted mandatory Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN) requiring all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally responsible. Taking effect on January 1, 2011, these comprehensive regulations will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and water use. This will have a profound impact on many categories of building products. California is often a barometer for trends in other states, so this is significant regardless of where you firm does business.

Chusid Associates is offering a FREE CONSULTATION to building product manufacturers who wish to better understand the potential impact of this new code.

The State anticipates the new code will help meet its goals of curbing global warming and achieving 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 and promoteing development of more sustainable communities by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency in every new home, office building or public structure.

Among the new requirements, CALGREEN will require that every new building constructed in California:

• Reduce water consumption by 20 percent,
  
• Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills,
• Install low pollutant-emitting materials.
  
• Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use,
• Requirement for moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects
• Mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies.

The state anticipates raising the bar further as time passes, and includes provisions to encourage local communities to take further action to green their buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and conserve our natural resources.

CALGREEN provisions will be inspected and verified by local and state building departments. Upon passing state building inspection, California’s property owners will have the ability to label their facilities as CALGREEN compliant without using additional costly third-party certification programs.

Click here for additional information about CALGREEN. Click here to download a draft of the new code. And contact Chusid Associates for your FREE CONSULTATION.

Standard Tests Help Your Product

At the heart of a really strong product claim is a third-party test to prove it.

But which test?

Not all tests are equal, nor are they equally beneficial to your product’s reputation. And since testing can be expensive, it should be planned with forethought about what tests will convince architects, engineers, specifiers, and other relevant decision-makers.

Design professionals rely on performance standards, such as those created by the consensus group ASTM International. These standards often refer to a particular test or group of tests, and have associated standards for the test methods. The standard creates a level playing field where apple-to-apples comparisons are possible. When a specifier compares multiple products that were tested to the same performance standard using the same test methods, the specifier can make an intelligent choice.

Too often, manufacturers don’t pay close enough attention to the commonly accepted standards and applicable test methods. They’ll do tests themselves without proper verification, or have tests run for them that don’t relate to the commonly accepted standards. Then they have test data that sounds good, but it’s the kind of data that doesn’t do much good to convince a responsible specifier.

And, contrary to expectation, that data doesn’t enhance the product’s credibility, because it was badly collected. It could actually degrade the reputation of the product and the manufacturer.

Another common mistake is to claim compliance with a standard, but not cite the test that backs it up. The claim sounds good, but it doesn’t meet the sniff test. A specifier is more likely to go with a product that has applicable test data readily available, simply because it’s the safer choice.

A report by the US Access Board on co-efficient of friction testing (http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/about/bulletins/surfaces.htm) highlights the difficulties created by using non-standard tests. It discusses a standard test method that was altered by use of a silastic sensor instead of the leather required by the protocol for the UL standard. The report states that the substitution “results in significantly higher values for the coefficient of friction of the surfaces being measured. As no correlation was made to any other standards or methodologies in the research, the values for coefficient of friction cannot be compared.”

A thoughtfully designed test program can be a very worthwhile investment in a product’s saleability. An improperly designed program is just a waste of time and money. Chusid Associates helps clients determine the most applicable tests with the best potential ROI, and helps design test programs that maximize useful data and eliminate irrelevant testing.