Naim's product stylists...

Does not look like they were involved in the statement wave and clear acrylic look, perhaps Naim upgraded.......

I don't think this is outside of the forum rules:

http://www.focal.com/usa/en/co...on-matthews-designer

Informative. Look forward to seeing some of his future Naim work. Thanks David.

This thread makes me wonder about the relative value of form versus function that a hifi manufacturer places on their products, especially with speakers. When does a stylist's aesthetics and marketability input trump an engineer's design that produces the optimal sound? Grills on or off at the least. Probably not unlike the game of aerodynamics versus styling that auto manufacturers are faced with.

I recently gave a lecture to the University of Bristol's Design Society, where I ruffled a few feathers by explaning that design is not about form and function, choice of materials etc. The really important part of design is understanding the relationship between the supplier and the customer, and how this is somethign which starts at "adequate" and goes downhill from there. There is no such thing as a "good install". Or a "good manual". Or a good anything. There is adequate, and then failures from that point.

This is especially important when it comes to understanding fault fixing, debugging and so forth. There is no such thing as a "good quick fix" to a problem. The problem shouldnt have been there in the first place, in the eyes of the customer. The manufacturer might like to spin this as a success -- in the eyes of the customer, it is a mitigated problem.

Unforunately, the whole reality of supplier/customer relationships has been distorted heavily by market survey companies, and their insistence on having scores that go from "very poor" to "very good". They like to provide a positive message to their client whenever possible. But this is not a real reflection of the customer/supplier relationship at all. And design is the understanding of that relationship in the much broader context than just a curve, a finish or a line (all of which are important, of course)

Do you also do motivational lectures Jon?  

Seriously though, I agree to a large part with what you say.

There is also another angle.

Its about the relationship between the supplier and the customer, but also about the balance between departments within the supplier/manufacturer itself.

I am in automotive myself, and the customer requirement is usually fairly clear.

The engineers will then design something, the sales guys will say its too expensive, the operations people will say its not possible within the constraints they have, the quality people will say there will be a high impact on field issues, etc.

So the end result is normally a compromise from all departments to come up with something workable that will actually meet the customer's requirements  and that he will be willing to pay for!

And the balance can change depending upon the relative 'strength' of the characters in each of the departments.

Unless the designers have free reign.....

But even then, Im sure even Statement had to make some compromises along the way.

I often do lectures... and R&D work at highest level with various companies, some very big. They can find it quite refreshing to have an outside view, which goes against established company mantra and historical positions. Doesnt mean I am always right, but merely having the conversation usually expands horizons.

And I am not naive enough to believe that Statement is built as "money no object". It clearly isnt. However,they have set an extremely high bar and have exceeded it. For a production item, that is all that is needed.

I was only joking in my first line Jon.

I think in the case of your lecture to the design fellows you were absolutely spot on.

Designs are always a compromise to a lesser or greater extent, they have to be.

Its a good thing to provoke healthy debate as often some great new ideas and perspectives will follow.

And there isnt much point in hiring an outside speaker if all they do is agree with the 'party line' as no-one will gain anything from it.

Certainly sounds like you get involved with some interesting things in your work.

Hi Jon -

This would seem to run contrary to an oft-told business school study about Maytag, an American manufacturer of home appliances.  They used to have an advertising campaign centered around an old, fat and sleepy repairman character.  The message they intended to convey was that their washing machines were so reliable, that their repairman had nothing better to do than nap at his desk all day.

But consumers were not that gullible. They knew that Maytags were mass produced just like any other brand and, therefore, subject to component failure.  So the unintended impression the ad campaign created was that, in the inevitable event of a problem, the Maytag service organization would not be capable of responding in a timely, professional manner.

The study went on to quote a survey of home appliance owners, and the results were interesting.  It turned out that consumers are considerably more likely to have brand loyalty if a product breaks, and is promptly and correctly repaired, than if that product never breaks at all!  I guess most people feel that in the latter case, they were simply lucky.

This made me think about my Naim experience. While every piece of Naim electronics I have purchased has been flawless, I truly believe that I have simply been lucky. Despite their reputation for high quality, I have no doubt that there will come a day when I will need Naim (or their US distributor) to fix a problem. So I continue to count on Naim's reputation for providing good after the sale service, and it remains top of mind as I look forward to future purchases.  

Do we consumers really demand perfection? Or, more realistically, do we expect manufacturers to demonstrate a genuine commitment to customer sat?

ATB.

Hook

Customers very much value the knowledge that their product can be fixed.

It is a very big deal that I can take my apple laptop into an applestore at 2pm on a sunday afternoon, and they will (and have) fix it on the spot. They have the parts, they have the skills, they have the process. 

I cant do that with a Dell. Or Samsung. Or...

I know for certain that customers of high-end audio value ongoing service support. Its a much bigger deal for Naim that it has a vibrant service department than the profits that this generates. 

...are you calling me 'vibrant' Jon?!?!?

From my perspective *EVERYTHING* can break ... some things more than others. (TVR anyone?)

For example, we get asked what NASs we recommend for use with our servers ... personally I *LOVE* NetGear ReadyNASs, not because they're particularly special but because I've set up probably 50 or more for us (as a company) to be used by our guys or for shows or events in the time that I've been here and the only one that has actually failed - as opposed to having a drive failing in it - belonged to a friend of our now-ex Managing Director.

It was replaced by NetGear very quickly, the existing drives banged in and was straight back up and running again with no faffing about.

So from my perspective it's how well something recovers from failure that counts.

To that end there's myself and Steve 'in the firing line' here at Naim but there are some great people behind us too ... I'm not going to claim that we're perfect but we do try and *HOPEFULLY* we can try to make a bad experience (of having a problem) better.

What's great is that we get to build up some fantastic relationships with some of our customers, during our summer shutdown the first week of August I'm going to be heading 'up north' to see my dad but on the way up I'm going to divert over to see a customer to try to help set up their network to be a bit more stable (they 'have' to use Ethernet Over Mains devices and they're as unreliable as hell in their house) ... I don't have to do it, I won't get paid for doing it, but the customer has been fantastic and (speaking for myself) I take my job very personally so I want to get them up and running as well as I can.

It's really hard when you get criticism but it's fantastic when you get good feedback too...

Phil

I'm from the US and growing up I remember those commercials...and all the women wanted Maytags...they were pricey though--considered one of the best.

Interesting thread. I lead an engineering/technical solution design team for a large company. Certainly my/ our current thinking for design is about providing a value proposition for our customers needs in a way that provides and builds on trust between the customer and provider. The area of trust is interesting as that has many dimensions depending on context and relationship. Experience, price, reliability, innovation, functionality, market position, brand, ability to deliver are all elements that affect this relationship. Needless to say as suggested above functionality is not always a dominant factor in that relationship.

Although my focus is on solution design now, previously I have focussed on product design and management and there are many similarities, albeit with product in my experience one is dealing with creating or addressing market proposition rather than a specific customers' value proposition, and here one needs to focus additionally on the internal providers culture of commercial risk. This sets the parameters one needs to design within in terms of leadership/innovation,  entry point into the market  and scale for the product development.

Simon

Simon -- trust is the only thing that matters. It underpins everything.

Phil: 

"So from my perspective it's how well something recovers from failure that counts."

Absolutely so. But there needs to be a recognition that it is not acceptable to assume that "everything fails" is adequate in the eyes of the customer, and thus creates a baseline of acceptability. This is my key point. Because that represents as shift towards "what the business can reasonably believe it can deliver" which is not *necessarily* in tune with "what the broader customer base will accept"

Note the key term "broader customer base". in the context of Naim, it has entered an entirely new world with Muso, for example: customers who would consider burndy cable dressing to be utter bollocks. These new customers have very different expectations to the "hairshirt hifi community".

This is also true about fault fixing. In the analogue past, a problem with an amp could only be fixed by someone on a test bench armed with a soldering iron and an Audio Precision (or B&K if we go back far enough). So there was a clear expectation of packing the thing up, getting it to the dealer, them sending it to Sheila, fixing, and then the return cycle. With software and firmware, people have an expectation that problems can be fixed in a much faster timeframe, measured sometimes in hours.

This then puts an entirely new set of pressures on the organisation about *how* it handles this, its transparency, documentation, feedback etc. Because the traditional routes and methods are not going to work.

Find some time with you and Trevor etc, and I'll come down on my new Ducati* and I'll rant at a whiteboard with you  

(Actually, let me wimp out and say the Ducati is way too intense for anything remotely like a motorway. BMW K1300S instead...)

There is research that shows that customers who have had a problem that is well dealt with by the supplier can be stronger adocates than those who did not have a problem in the first place.

indeed, and the way you sell more is to make your name first on the list. So if samsung wants to sell more fridges, it needs to make sure that its TV customers are super-happy and that samsung is the first name they think of. 

this rarely applies at the small vendor level like naim, because the products are sufficiently away from mainstream in terms of cost that "normal" decision making doesnt necessarily apply.

Dave, absolutely. I was at a workshop yesterday, and we visited exactly this briefly. having software / hardware that is too reliable over time can weaken the relationship between the vendor / customer. in IT having an approach  of providing 'recommended' upgrades and updates wether specifically needed or not can help mainrain  the relationship. Using a progressive maintenance  pricing model can help assist addressing this if the underlying technology is implicitly reliable.

Clearly many consumer goods have planned obselence.

Naim have a model of servicing to maintain performance of the product.

All these methods require that the relationship between customer/vendor to be revisited at periods of time.

Jom, indeed, it's all about trust and relationship. The real skill of an engineering designer is to design and have delivered and supported a solution/product than builds customer trust by meeting or exceeding customer expectation ... Not designing and building clever abstractions in the lab, we leave that to the technicians and scientists 

While perhaps ancillary, I'll share my experience dealing with exemplary customer service and the notion of trust, albeit from a much bigger industry than hifi.

I got notice today of a recall for airbags on my son's 2003 Honda Civic. A big concern for me as my son has twice been involved in self-induced (minor) collisions during his short driving history. Upon calling my local Honda dealer I was informed that there is a back-log of replacement parts for the airbag recall, up to several weeks wait. I expressed concern about my son driving a vehicle with dubious airbag deployment. The Honda agent told me that I could immediately drop my Civic at the shop and they would provide me with a loaner vehicle, at no cost, to be used until the recall repairs can be made. Wow!!! Now that's customer service done right and further testimony to the fact that all three current vehicles in my household are Hondas, and others probably will be for life.

For 20 years, I was a huge huge fan of BMW's styling / design.  It is a premium brand, offering a premium product, that really 'sung' to me.  I enjoyed driving my two 5-series with the 'dame Edna' headlamps and 'Bangle-butt' trunk and iDrive controller.  These were all items heavily criticized at first, and later adopted by many many other automobile designers.

The past few years, BMW lost me.  I still appreciate their premium branding, but the designs have become, to me, homogenized.  And I was surprised at how soft the road-feel was of a 435i.

For the first time since 1994 my daily driver is not a BMW.  It's a Tesla now.