From: blockedofcourse@foo.invalid   
      
   On 12/11/2025 2:03 PM, Martin Brown wrote:   
   > On 11/12/2025 20:19, John R Walliker wrote:   
   >> On 11/12/2025 20:03, Don Y wrote:   
   >   
   >>> Engineers get used to absolutes.  It's psychologically comforting   
   >>> to be able to lean on some "hard numbers" to bolster your claims.   
   >>> Consumers put little faith in those.  *Designing* for that market   
   >>> is entirely different than for a regulated market or one where   
   >>> the customer expects metrics to apply.  There, you don't want the   
   >>> customer to remember any negative aspects of your product that   
   >>> will discourage him from a repeat purchase.   
   >>>   
   >>> A "300 dB horn" just has to SOUND loud.  REALLY loud.   
   >>   
   >> How can companies compete fairly when their claims are so   
   >> obviously made up?   
   >   
   > It is the marketing and sales guys that are to blame.   
   > Their job is to sell the product and get their sales bonus.   
      
   On the other hand, if they don't make sales, then the engineers   
   end up on the curb with all the rest of the employees!   
      
   Instead of "Sales", I blame "Engineering" (management).  It is   
   their JOB to advise as to what IS possible and what ISN'T.   
   If they knuckle under to an overzealous sales person, then   
   they're not serving a useful role in the organization.   
      
   Just like those who promise incredibly optimistic delivery dates.   
      
   Because they don't want to be the party-pooper!   
      
   > Lead time on our kit (~ 4 yr build time) was such that they   
   > would have no hesitation in offering a product that would require   
   > the repeal of one or more laws of physics. They would invariably have moved   
   on   
   > before the product was actually delivered.   
      
   At one of my early jobs, one of the salesmen made outrageous claims as to   
   the amount of business he could bring in "if only...".  My boss (VP Eng)   
   held the guy's feet to the fire and made damn sure that he had to double-down   
   on those claims -- in front of the Sales Manager and President of company.   
      
   When we delivered the product (on an accelerated schedule, at the expense   
   of other designs) and NONE of the "promised" (imagined!) sales materialized,   
   my boss pushed for the salesman's dismissal.   
      
   > Salesmen take their sales bonuses and run. It is up to scientists and   
   engineers   
   > to somehow deliver on what they have promised the customer.   
      
   It's up to the engineers to inform the decision makers of what is possible,   
   what it will cost, and what is just folly.  It's up to management to listen   
   to those assessments and avoid "wishful thinking"!   
      
   Letting engineers define products is usually a bad idea (unless they are   
   selling to other engineers).  They often are not application domain experts   
   and get distracted by shiney things along the way.   
      
   OTOH, letting sales people (different from marketing) make the investment   
   decisions is equally fraught.  What skin do they have in the game (unless   
   they are paid ENTIRELY on commission)?   
      
   I presented a new product proposal to management at a firm, many years ago.   
   Such a *formal* presentation had never been made in the history of the   
   company!  New projects/products were the result of /ad hoc/ decisions.   
      
   As expected, the "old guard" worked hard to defend the existing (way out   
   of date, technologically) products -- despite quantitative evidence that   
   they just weren't selling!  As such, they attacked every MISSING feature   
   in my proposal.  Without having hard data to back up their claims that   
   it was "needed" or "desired".  I didn't make any friends when I produced   
   ALL of the purchase orders for those products and was able to give a   
   hard number to indicate just how "necessary" each of those features had   
   proven to be!  And, who the specific customers had been!   
      
   [Why is it MY job to prepare that data and not marketing's??]   
      
   >> Why should I believe one impossible claim is better or worse than   
   >> another impossible claim?   
   >> John   
   >   
   > Impossible claims that are beyond known laws of physics are worse.   
      
   How often are claims actually *tested*?  E.g., I commented about   
   my LED light bulb experience -- I *know* they haven't had the   
   50K hour service life claimed on the packaging!   
      
   > Impossible claims that are difficult engineering but if made to work would   
   open   
   > entirely new frontiers are actually rather fun to work on.   
   > If a bit of a white knuckle ride...   
      
   A lot depends on the magnitude of the "investment" and the firm's attitude   
   towards R&D.   
      
   I was visiting a firm that we had a partnership with and couldn't help but   
   notice the 12 ft tall prototype sitting off in the corner of the lab.   
   Asking about it, out of genuine curiosity, I was told NOT to ask (not   
   because it was "secret" but, rather, because it represented a few   
   megabucks of "failed experiment").  Was my host's disdain because he   
   had objected to the project and wasted resources, needlessly?  Or,   
   because he had been an advocate and it had failed??   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)