Vendors: now really...how often do you beat your wife?

[Regular Guy]

I had this idea just yesterday, a post from John Q prompts it again today, so what the heck...

Vendors...I can envision a perfect universe, where 5 customers will call in, all in a row (of some sort -- even say -- within a 4 hour period), and each ask about those 4 1 carat G VS2s you have (or some such close combination of diamonds you have in stock), asking: please look at them for me, and tell me which one is the one I should get?

So, what are they asking? You do not need to do a personality assessment of these people. Also, maybe you could try to qualify them, saying...are you more in love with bright lite, or with fire, yada yada. What they will want to know, is that for those 4 diamonds, that you have already pre-picked as to your liking, still, which one of even 2 - 12 options that are close in character to each other, which one is the best, if even marginally, since you and they cannot conscionably imagine they will all be sent to either the shopper or even an independent appraiser on their behalf. And so, that''s the set-up.

In this perfect world, I can imagine your answering, "in order of their calls" which one is best, and after a purchase commitment, your eliminating that one that had been purchased, and then only recommending the ones you currently have available.

But...come on. I can more readily imagine that this is not a perfect world. Although I would believe you would sell any of your stock to anybody, I''ll bet there are some situations, and moreover, some customers, who perhaps are just a certain way with you on the phone, wherein you''ll look at those options available to them, and say to yourself...you know...there''s gotta be someone else in the cue that''s going to get that particular one, and then recommend a different one.

So, really, how often do you beat your wife? You could tell the truth and say never. Also, maybe you could more believably tell the truth, and share a story about the situation that will tend to make you veer a customer to a diamond that a more favored customer may be veered to instead.

Regards,

 

[Mara]

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 10/15/2005 12:03:57 PM
Author: Mara

Ditto.

 

[Demelza]

Me too. What's up with the heading?????

 

[Kaleigh]

 

[Maya Moonstone]

Huh?

In my opinion a very inappropriate and insulting heading.

Maya

 

[JohnQuixote]

Ira, you asked me to reply, but this subject line is uncomfortable. I moved the question here.

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

Yea, I don''t get the title, and I''m not easily offended but that is just terrible.

 

[msb700]

Date: 10/15/2005 3:00:26 PM
Author: LadyluvsLuxury
Yea, I don''t get the title, and I''m not easily offended but that is just terrible.

i agree with all..this is a very inappropriate heading and very offending...and i dont get how it has to do with wat was written...

.

 

[Regular Guy]

Ummm....I've been out all day, and have come back to more than Mara's puzzled icon.

The question "how often do you beat your wife" was intended as a term of art of a sort, as represented/found as one of many entries in a google search on the phrase, where the question, when asked, implies something from the outset. It is a classic phrase, not originating with me.

Frankly, I was actually expecting some genuine stories that might go at answering the question, but John, at least, did not take the bait. His answer is quite nice. Another vendor might succeed with a more humorous anecdote, but I'm afraid it would probably belong more here, rather than there (under John's nicely corrected and cleaned up version of this post.

Meant in good fun, but trying to address with some seriousness the anticipated question some of us would certainly have when, addressing a vendor from a distance, and when we do not have our own eyes to use, we do ask them to help us "pick one" among the ones they have actually already picked.

So, sorry for having caused any trouble. The question was both serious, and written, intending/inviting some fun.

Regards,

 

[Shay37]

Ira, that is the classic Q posed by a prosecutor to a defendant whereby he invites the defendant to incriminate himself, correct? Does that mean that you just assume that all vendors or most are in fact biased towards one customer over another, and to see if they would admit it, or...? The reason I ask is because the title question is a setup, and I wondered if that was your purpose in asking that. Sorry if I have misunderstood your intent.

Shay

 

[Kaleigh]

I saw the title of this thread and was and still am perplexed. I read your post again and still don''t get your point. Next time think about your wording, I''m not the only one that was offended by your choice of words. JMHO.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/15/2005 5:39:48 PM
Author: Shay37
Ira, that is the classic Q posed by a prosecutor to a defendant whereby he invites the defendant to incriminate himself, correct? Does that mean that you just assume that all vendors or most are in fact biased towards one customer over another, and to see if they would admit it, or...? The reason I ask is because the title question is a setup, and I wondered if that was your purpose in asking that. Sorry if I have misunderstood your intent.

Shay

Shay,

The title was intended to trigger the recollection of the set-up....right? Not sure that that worked, but that was the intent. And so, from that point of view, all intent for self incrimination was intended to be exposed from the get go. I suppose that, although you have turned my intention around a bit, you have succeeded in helping to expose what was my genuine intent with the title.

Re your highlighted text above...to not be biased, and consistent with JohnQ's nice response, would be ordinarily the most utilitarian thing to do. It seems to me that we sometimes behave more in line with what is described in psychology by rules of "cognitive dissonance," and behave in ways that are contrary to rules of good and expected behavior, but also, which help to expose how we are all that much human for it.

So, again, re your highlighted text, to the contrary, though it is my expectation that all vendors will, most of the time, serve the best interests of the customer that they are attending to...frankly...it is also my expectation that most vendors, some small percentage of the time, may....consider doing otherwise.

I think this is a sensitive topic. Made only less sensitive, probably, by the title.

Warmest regards to all those who have ventured this far (eta...and Kaleigh...seeing your post as well, regret any offence),

 

[Mara]

I'll put this response here but I can also copy it to John's thread...

One thought that occured to me re: vendors and customers and how to choose a stone or customer bias (possibly if that is what you are asking)...

I really think most vendors really try to find out what the customer is looking for and their preferences first. What are their priorities.

When I was shopping for my last upgrade, there was a 1.64 J SI2 ACA and a 1.60 ES J SI2 stone at WF. I asked Brian to pull both stones and then we spoke on the phone. Brian, having worked with me in the past on my 1.29 H SI purchase and my earrings and Greg's stone etc, knows how picky I am and that we can easily spend an hour or two on the phone talking about nuances in cut and clarity etc etc. My focus on THIS particular conversation was between the two stones and the jump to a J from an H and the SI1 to SI2 clarity.

I said I wanted to know what he thought between the two stones. Were both of them eye-clean, which one was better looking, did one appear different than the other etc. He noted that the ES had more of a gray tinge to it while the ACA had a tiny bit more of a yellowish color to it...not YELLOW of course but that off-white term that we bandy about from time to time here on PS. The ES was more of an eye-clean stone than the ACA. The ACA was obviously that tiny bit better cut to earn the brand name, but we also talked about the nuances of cut and what your eye could really see. Brian told me re: eye-cleanliness on the ES stone...well Mara I can't tell you that you will not see anything in this stone but it's a very nice stone and looks clean to me.

So I hemmed and hawed for a bit longer but in the end I went with the ES. Brian was completely frank with me that the ES was a more clean stone and that it had the gray tone which may make the stone itself look a bit more colorless than a J should be. In the end my ES was breathtaking, he did a fabulous job being my 'eyes' on this purchase and I could not have been happier.

Being that he knows what my priorities are, aka can I see color and any inclusions, we spent more time discussing and critiquing the two stones based on those two requirements, I already know from experience that an ES vs an ACA for MY EYES is just a matter of inventory...both were exceptionally cut. But another customer may have required a slightly better cut stone, and maybe in that instance color and clarity would not have been quite at the forefront that they were at for my purchase. Maybe another customer would have been more drawn to the ACA stone if top notch 99.99999% cut requirement or a brand was their priority.

So based on my experience, I feel like the vendors here really try to ferret out what you are really looking for, and then steering you towards what THEIR eyes perceive as meeting YOUR requirements. And on a virtual purchase if you are willing to trust the vendor's eyes then it can be a huge benefit in the end to you. I also have never felt like any of the vendors here have PUSHED me towards one stone or another or said oh THIS is the one for you. Maybe because I don't invite that kind of absolute discussion, I'd rather have the facts presented on the stones and their performance, and then make my own decisions. Putting the serious contender on hold of course.

Not sure if that helps at all but it struck me as being somewhat appropriate for the topic.

 

[HOUMedGal]

Nice post, Mara!

Ira, just wanted to come back and let you know that I did read your second post in this thread (as you recommended that I do in the other thread), and that I''m glad I was correct in assuming that no offense was meant!

I do understand the question you were asking and think it is a valid and interesting question...I had just never heard that allusion used before (maybe because it is indeed offensive to many).

Interested to see further replies here and in the other thread...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/15/2005 5:58:41 PM
Author: Mara

I''ll put this response here but I can also copy it to John''s thread...

Good input Mara - I would like to see this in the other thread as well.