Author: Tony F
Date: 2013-03-03 05:57
Quote.
"Giving the customer what s/he wants" is sometimes referred to as "consumer sovereignty." As a general rule, is "consumer sovereignty" adequate justification for a professional to sell a customer a product or provide a client a service that the customer/client requests (demands) but the professional knows or, at least, strongly believes, is not in the customer's/client's best interests? Or are there circumstances when a professional's integrity should demand that s/he refuse to serve the customer. In the face of strong belief, is it enough to inform the customer that there is a better choice? Is the desire to make a buck sufficient justification? (I don't consider these to be trivial questions.)"
I can see situations where it might not be the most ethical choice to offer a product which you know to be inferior to another, but this implies a demonstrable means of quantifying the inferiority.
In the case of Mr Ridenour, I do not consider this to be the case. His clarinets are available in two different materials. The difference in the performance of these materials is largely in the mind (or ear) of the player, and it is the player who makes the decision as to which one to buy. The protagonists of these materials are sometimes quite certain that their choice, whatever it is, is the correct and logical choice.
Likewise, if the purchaser is not certain which is best, both materials are available for him to choose from. This being the case, then why would he not offer both materials. By all accounts Mr Ridenour makes an excellent product, and for myself I appreciate being able to make my own choice as to which flavour I want it in. When offering a product it is reasonable to expect the customer to take a major part tn the matter of choice. As long as both choices are available I do not see that there is any problem here.
Tony F.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
