I guess I didn’t make myself as clear as I thought. What some people are asking Spyderco to do isn’t simple, easy or without cost to both Spyderco and their customers. “Desiring some form of access to spare parts” isn’t the issue. Insisting that Spyderco provide them is. Spyderco may decide to attempt that. Or not. I think it is a bad idea.clovehitch wrote: ↑Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:39 pmOf this, I am certain.
Supplying literature on the dimensions of parts doesn't seem like it would cause Spyderco to go bankrupt. They'd probably sell a few more knives because of it. But hey, what do I know. Perhaps it's better off being a mystery. Plus, I can't think of anything more fun than tossing one of your favorite knives that you use every day in the mailbox.
One side seems to say "it would be nice to have access to spare parts in some way" and the other says "You whiners are lucky Spyderco even exists. If you weird customer people have any suggestions, make sure you formally type them up, print them out on 8x11 paper, fold it up neatly, business-style, put in an stamped envelope, and place it directly into a paper shredder."
Joking aside, this issue seems way more controversial than it needs to be. I will always support Sypderco's decisions. And we certainly are lucky that they handle business in the manner they do. But I don't think the individuals who desire some form of access to spare parts are out of line, nor are they asking for the world.
It too certainly back Spyderco’s ultimate decision, win, loose or draw and it won’t influence my decision in buying Spyderco products one way or another.
Do you have any ideas?MichaelScott wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:57 amI sympathize and I see this as a cost-benefit ratio analysis. The benefits to a small number of customers would be easier access to a number (as yet undefined number) of spare (also undefined) parts. Benefits to Spyderco would be a higher perception of customer service among those people wanting parts, and to a lesser degree, everyone else.
Costs would be the customer having to find the required parts specifications and then source them without Spyderco's assistance, or incur significant cost and time to return the defective knife to Spyderco. Costs to Spyderco have already been enumerated. They would be significant.
Which, then, makes sense from Spyderco's perspective?
The idea of collecting all the specification data for all Spyderco knives in all variants made any time in all locations, organizing that in an online database then maintaining it for accuracy and updates would be no small matter either.
There may be other solutions that have a tolerable cost-benefit ratio that would be way out of kilter for either side.
Any other ideas?
This is extremely vague, and not a solution. You are not going to change behavior (taking apart knives) with policy.MichaelScott wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:41 amI think Spyderco should work closely with their distributors outside the USA to find more equitable solutions to their customer issues. Supplying parts or parts specifications is a rat hole down which I would not care to venture. And, that doesn’t resolve the initial issues Sal brought forward which are the rather large number of knives returned to Spyderco for warranty repair that have been damaged by their users, and that supplying parts or specifications will encourage knife owners to take them apart and, in many cases, fail to reassemble them correctly, thereby creating the issue we are discussing here.
Resolve, as well as can be done and still maintain a viable business, those issues where they occcur at the best convenience and lowest cost to the customer, recognizing that there will still be a cost involved.
You aren't providing any ideas, just repeating that you don't think it's a good idea. I think this is what he's referring to...?MichaelScott wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:46 pmI didn’t say mine were the only good ideas. If I think you (the generic “you”) has a bad idea I am free to say so. I have strong opinions and if you (the specific “you”) think that is pontificating, I don’t mind. Open discussions permit the clash of differing ideas and opinions, and occasionally, very occasionally, ideas get changed as a result. That’s my perspective on discussions.
I still think from a cost-benefit perspective all this parts supply business is a bad idea. Your mileage, obviously, differs and your considered opinion is welcome.
An addendum. I think I’ve said about all I have to say on this topic, so I’m going to withdraw from further discussions. If anyone wants to continue off-forum, send me a PM or email and we might be able to continue.
The above is 100% true and that's why I copied it.Hugaso wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:49 pmWow.
Personally, I have no interest in ever purchasing replacement parts. I completely understand Spyderco's existing policy.
However, I think it's very admirable of you sal to open this topic to discussion/consideration. You and Eric keeping doing what you do, because you folks are the best.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Wartstein and 20 guests