I listened.
Chris, thanks for the call out.
It was interesting.
One question,,,,why was a tech who only works for 1 national or platform included?
I also think that a lot of nationals were rated based on calls through platforms,,,not direct with the national. Maybe that's a valid evaluation,,,and maybe not.
it was open to anyone, but it was a bit of a pain to get people to attend the discussion afaik.
As to the platforms..... I know for me about 60% are direct and the others are platform related.... lately we've been getting more and more buyers requesting to go direct. tbh it really doesn't make a huge difference to me.... except the platforms can be a bit easier to get paid through.
Chris is correct. In fact, in another public thread I solicited participants for the panel and it was open to any of the techs or vendors.
Tom, you brought up the question of balancing such a discussion in the past, and I was not dismissing the idea at all. The problem is getting everyone to the table (or microphone, as the case may be) to do it. It isn't as easy as you may think. If I could, I would put out a show a week with a panel discussion, but it takes a lot to co-ordinate them and this isn't a full time gig that pays my bills - at least, not yet.
I would love to get all of the nationals and techs together to discuss all of these issues on the show, and I would love to have a completely diverse set of opinions from all of them. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen the way you and I want, simply because all of the parties involved aren't willing to participate.
Onforce certainly won't do it. I know. They have openly snubbed me on numerous occasions. Everyone here knows I've tried to give them a fair shake and I would do it if I interviewed them. Sure, I would ask the tough questions, but that's because it is expected of me and I would be fair about it. They won't come on to defend their position because they don't like me at all. They also know that they have a weak position on some of those issues and will not allow themselves to be placed in a vulnerable position to defend it. So, instead, they rely on promotional "fluff" pieces in trade publications that they can control to state their positions.
The same is true for companies like Barrister and iYogi. They know they have a public relations problem with the techs so they won't allow themselves to be placed on a panel to discuss them "face to face" because it puts them uncomfortably close to the issues they prefer to ignore.
As you heard in the panel discussion, these techs weren't bashing all the nationals and platforms. There were praises for many of them. PC SOS was one, but there were others that the techs specifically noted as favorite companies to work for and those comments were generally glowing. The simple truth is, there was no bashing here. Good and bad, they were just telling it like it is from their own personal experiences.
I am very glad that the one tech who had not worked for any of the nationals and platforms on the worst list was there to provide his take on it, because he was a perfect example of how techs should properly vet them to protect themselves. He said he didn't work for those companies because he checked them out first, relying on the experiences of the other techs to navigate around them to protect himself. If all the techs did this, there would be fewer complaints against some of your competitors because fewer techs would be getting burned by them, and they would have a better attitude towards nationals and platforms overall. I am glad he was on the panel because he brought up some things that needed to be said to improve the relationships between the nationals and the techs. I wouldn't call it an epiphany, but I think he presented some good points to consider.
Perhaps some day we can get all these nationals, platforms and techs together in a roundtable to sort it all out. At the moment, it is not feasible, not because I don't want such a discussion, because I do, but because some of your competitors would refuse to participate.
Topic: The Force Field 63 - The NCSP Survey Report Panel Discussion (Read 4429 times)