Concerns About Survive! Business and Misleading Lead Time Estimates

[mlmcasual]

Silver, as far as I can tell the knives that are currently being shipped went through the contracted cutting, grinding, and heat treat processes about a year ago.
That means that Survive has been working through their first couple of production batches ever since then, and any lessons learned are first going to be reflected in the 2.7 model.
Ellie has said a number of times that the 2.7 is a lot faster to process through their shop, and they have finished the 5.1 and seem to be on the cusp of finishing the 4.7.
So, again, as far as I can see Survive has been crawling through glass fixing the mistakes from their first production runs under the new production process and while setting up a new shop for the last entire year.
If I was Guy I'd be more frustrated and worn out than any customer could possibly be, yet he keeps on going with a remarkably good public attitude.

LOL give me an F'in break and bust out world's smallest violin. is that sarcasm, or supposed to be joke? I hope so. How do you even know what "Guy''s" attitude is?? He doesn't post or interact.

 

[Fancier]

Well, he doesn't do Blade Forums posts if that is what you mean.
He does interact on other platforms.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Please do take a break, and remember that we and also Guy, like you, can be elsewhere on this amazing web of computer connections, publicizing his attitude for all to see and read.

 

[mlmcasual]

Please do take a break, and remember that we and also Guy, like you, can be elsewhere on this amazing web of computer connections, publicizing his attitude for all to see and read.

Great advice, I hope you take it.

 

[Silver Needle]

LOL give me an F'in break and break out world's smallest violin. is that sarcasm, or supposed to be joke? I hope so. How do you even know what "Guy''s" attitude is?? He doesn't post or interact.

Was this meant to be disrespectful?

He politely made his point and it makes sense to me.

 

[Silver Needle]

Nevermind, your edit answers my question.

 

[Skystorm]

Speaking of other platforms, From Guy...

Pretty easy to interpret that as zero operating cash available and relying on Seconds and Uglies to currently fund monthly costs and why more pre orders/LE are necessary or other models may never see the light of day. One could also interpret that as to why refunds have to seemingly be hounded out of them.

One could also make the case for the abnormally high amount of Seconds available, There seems to be a rather suspect amount of 'waste' on a weekly basis. After 6 years you should know your manufacturing inside and out. Firsts being distributed as Seconds to cover monthly expenses isn't really that far fetched, regardless of the infantile way it was initially presented, and certainly not some new idea in business. That post can easily be construed as willful intent to the FTC. Intent being one of the main things they focus on when they are deciding whether you deserve a severe finger waggling, fining you into oblivion, or somewhere in between.

I could agree with actual Seconds being built and sold in the off hours but not while you have thousands of orders paid and on the books. 100% of focus should be on delivering what was paid for, not on cash grabs. I seriously do not understand how someone can justify another pre order and an LE run with so much in already undelivered products on the table.

 

[timichango]

Speaking of other platforms, From Guy...

Pretty easy to interpret that as zero operating cash available and relying on Seconds and Uglies to currently fund monthly costs and why more pre orders/LE are necessary or other models may never see the light of day. One could also interpret that as to why refunds have to seemingly be hounded out of them.

One could also make the case for the abnormally high amount of Seconds available, There seems to be a rather suspect amount of 'waste' on a weekly basis. After 6 years you should know your manufacturing inside and out. Firsts being distributed as Seconds to cover monthly expenses isn't really that far fetched, regardless of the infantile way it was initially presented, and certainly not some new idea in business. That post can easily be construed as willful intent to the FTC. Intent being one of the main things they focus on when they are deciding whether you deserve a severe finger waggling, fining you into oblivion, or somewhere in between.

I could agree with actual Seconds being built and sold in the off hours but not while you have thousands of orders paid and on the books. 100% of focus should be on delivering what was paid for, not on cash grabs. I seriously do not understand how someone can justify another pre order and an LE run with so much in already undelivered products on the table.

This would be a pretty relevant addition to the GBU thread, even if said thread was started by He Who Can No Longer Post In This Sub And Shall Not Be Named

 

[Fancier]

Please don't make me regret staying in this discussion.
Why does covering one's fixed costs have to be interpreted as not having any operating cash?
Nobody that owns a small business has any "off hours" and I think that includes Ellie and Guy.
What is wrong with selling stuff that you have in the shop to generate income?
How do we know how many units have been scrapped from each model run?
Would deliberately operating at a loss be a better business model?

In my opinion this thread often goes well beyond expressing concerns and delves down into the raking of muck.
To the extent that new insights and information are presented I find this thread useful.

 

[timichango]

Please don't make me regret staying in this discussion.

OK

Why does covering one's fixed costs have to be interpreted as not having any operating cash?

There's a bit of a leap there, for sure, but looking at the pattern it's easy to interpret that they need to do the interim sales to keep the lights on, which suggests that the preorder money is already spent. Which is self-explicably concerning, given that the products from the preorder still aren't delivered.

Nobody that owns a small business has any "off hours" and I think that includes Ellie and Guy.

Dude, agree 100%. BTDT.

What is wrong with selling stuff that you have in the shop to generate income?

Nothing, as long as it's not diverting resources from prior commitments, and delaying them further.

How do we know how many units have been scrapped from each model run?

We don't. Agreed that most or all discussion in this area is pure speculation.

Would deliberately operating at a loss be a better business model?

Taking on new liabilities when you're floundering under old ones is problematic for a number of reasons. It's one way to bring in new capital, but has reciprocal risks — which we're witnessing in the form of dissent and frustration in their customer base.

In my opinion this thread often goes well beyond expressing concerns and delves down into the raking of muck.

Agree. To some extent.

To the extent that new insights and information are presented I find this thread useful.

Agree.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Pretty easy to interpret that as zero operating cash available and relying on Seconds and Uglies to currently fund monthly costs and why more pre orders/LE are necessary or other models may never see the light of day. One could also interpret that as to why refunds have to seemingly be hounded out of them.

You're the first I've ever heard claim that refunds need to be "hounded out of them". That was your experience?

When S!K opened the Starter, models were offered at a significant discount with an indefinite delivery time. Pre-order and pre-sale knives had the same indefinite delivery time. HOWEVER, S!K specifically stated that they produce MORE of each model than is actually ordered, anticipating some "seconds", etc. and also producing more for sale to cover operating costs. The Starter orders were to help grow the company, not to sustain it indefinitely.

One could also make the case for the abnormally high amount of Seconds available, There seems to be a rather suspect amount of 'waste' on a weekly basis. After 6 years you should know your manufacturing inside and out. Firsts being distributed as Seconds to cover monthly expenses isn't really that far fetched, regardless of the infantile way it was initially presented, and certainly not some new idea in business. That post can easily be construed as willful intent to the FTC. Intent being one of the main things they focus on when they are deciding whether you deserve a severe finger waggling, fining you into oblivion, or somewhere in between.

Survive has only been producing product since 2012 (4 years), and has gone through SIGNIFICANT changes in operation since their inception. The current iteration of the company essentially started in late 2014 / early 2015 when they moved across country. So that criticism is gone.

While "firsts" being distributed as "seconds" might make sense to some, S!K could have priced them much higher... but did not. "Willful intent" to ... deceive? Deceive whom? The customers receiving "firsts" priced as "seconds"?? Or the customers who gave signed consent to an indefinite delivery date? "Willful intent" can only exist IF some "wrong" had been perpetrated, and the "wrong" asserted in this thread is the missing of proposed shipping time-lines, ostensibly due to too many orders accepted and too few employees to inspect and complete them. Which part do you see as "willful intent" on the part of S!K? Which part would you argue to the FTC? That their contractors sent them too many parts requiring hand-finishing or unacceptable as "firsts"? What you are suggesting is that the company DELIBERATELY under-priced product to generate less maintenance funds than they otherwise might have, and then failed to deliver some of those knives on time? Remember, production images show >1000 4.7s alone. How many were offered on a "Monday Sale" or the like and then missed their date? All of them? Most of them? Just some of them? How many indicates "willful intent" on the part of S!K? These sales started with the GSO-5.1s, then the 4.7s and 2.7s, and indeed a number of posters commented on receiving their orders within the previously specified time-frame. Others have commented that their orders were delayed, some substantially so... but no claims of denied refunds.

There is ONE complaint being leveled: S!K published a delivery time-frame at point of sale for "Monday Sales" that it failed to meet in some instances. It has since corrected the wording of the time-frame and has been working hard ever since to fulfill all existing orders. "Willful intent" would be very hard to argue.

 

[Revolverrodger]

LOL give me an F'in break and bust out world's smallest violin. is that sarcasm, or supposed to be joke? I hope so. How do you even know what "Guy''s" attitude is?? He doesn't post or interact.

Your crassness is a clear sign of your character

 

[mtangent]

Pretty easy to interpret that as zero operating cash available and relying on Seconds and Uglies to currently fund monthly costs and why more pre orders/LE are necessary or other models may never see the light of day. One could also interpret that as to why refunds have to seemingly be hounded out of them.

One could also make the case for the abnormally high amount of Seconds available, There seems to be a rather suspect amount of 'waste' on a weekly basis. After 6 years you should know your manufacturing inside and out. Firsts being distributed as Seconds to cover monthly expenses isn't really that far fetched, regardless of the infantile way it was initially presented, and certainly not some new idea in business. That post can easily be construed as willful intent to the FTC. Intent being one of the main things they focus on when they are deciding whether you deserve a severe finger waggling, fining you into oblivion, or somewhere in between.

.

Please don't make me regret staying in this discussion.
Why does covering one's fixed costs have to be interpreted as not having any operating cash?
Nobody that owns a small business has any "off hours" and I think that includes Ellie and Guy.
What is wrong with selling stuff that you have in the shop to generate income?
How do we know how many units have been scrapped from each model run?
Would deliberately operating at a loss be a better business model?

In my opinion this thread often goes well beyond expressing concerns and delves down into the raking of muck.
To the extent that new insights and information are presented I find this thread useful.

Skystorm has simply outlined a possibility. He did not state it as fact. There are many other possible interpretations, none of us know the truth. None of your questions detract from Skystorm's interpretation.

 

[timichango]

Skystorm has simply outlined a possibility. He did not state it as fact. There are many other possible interpretations, none of us know the truth. None of your questions detract from Skystorm's interpretation.

Yeah, my main doubts with Skystorm's theory is that, to me, it doesn't pass Hanlon's Razor:"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

That said, anything's possible at this point.

 

[Tachead7075]

You're the first I've ever heard claim that refunds need to be "hounded out of them". That was your experience?

When S!K opened the Starter, models were offered at a significant discount with an indefinite delivery time. Pre-order and pre-sale knives had the same indefinite delivery time. HOWEVER, S!K specifically stated that they produce MORE of each model than is actually ordered, anticipating some "seconds", etc. and also producing more for sale to cover operating costs. The Starter orders were to help grow the company, not to sustain it indefinitely.



Survive has only been producing product since 2012 (4 years), and has gone through SIGNIFICANT changes in operation since their inception. The current iteration of the company essentially started in late 2014 / early 2015 when they moved across country. So that criticism is gone.

While "firsts" being distributed as "seconds" might make sense to some, S!K could have priced them much higher... but did not. "Willful intent" to ... deceive? Deceive whom? The customers receiving "firsts" priced as "seconds"?? Or the customers who gave signed consent to an indefinite delivery date? "Willful intent" can only exist IF some "wrong" had been perpetrated, and the "wrong" asserted in this thread is the missing of proposed shipping time-lines, ostensibly due to too many orders accepted and too few employees to inspect and complete them. Which part do you see as "willful intent" on the part of S!K? Which part would you argue to the FTC? That their contractors sent them too many parts requiring hand-finishing or unacceptable as "firsts"? What you are suggesting is that the company DELIBERATELY under-priced product to generate less maintenance funds than they otherwise might have, and then failed to deliver some of those knives on time? Remember, production images show >1000 4.7s alone. How many were offered on a "Monday Sale" or the like and then missed their date? All of them? Most of them? Just some of them? How many indicates "willful intent" on the part of S!K? These sales started with the GSO-5.1s, then the 4.7s and 2.7s, and indeed a number of posters commented on receiving their orders within the previously specified time-frame. Others have commented that their orders were delayed, some substantially so... but no claims of denied refunds.

There is ONE complaint being leveled: S!K published a delivery time-frame at point of sale for "Monday Sales" that it failed to meet in some instances. It has since corrected the wording of the time-frame and has been working hard ever since to fulfill all existing orders. "Willful intent" would be very hard to argue.

There was a specified delivery date for both the 4.1 and 2.7 pre-sale knives as well. Here is a quick copy and paste of the email we all received...

Limited Presale On Now!
View this email in your browser
GSO-2.7 and GSO-4.1 Presale
Limited Amounts Available Now!
For the folks who don't want to fight the Monday crowds, we are offering a Presale on the GSO-2.7 and GSO-4.1. It will take us a couple months to fulfill these presale orders so they are being listed at a 5% discount!
GSO-2.7
$144
Presale price: $136
GSO-4.1
$229
Presale price: $217
Numbers Are Limited!
After this Presale, remaining blades will not be available until existing orders have been fulfilled and they will only be sold at the new, higher price.
Instagram
Twitter
Email
Website
Copyright © 2016 SURVIVE!, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted to be notified about SURVIVE! product availability and other exciting SURVIVE! news.

Our mailing address is:
SURVIVE!
PO Box 777
Kellogg, ID 83837

Add us to your address book


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

A couple of months is 2 and we are now getting close to 4 months. I wouldn't be surprised if it is many, many more months before the pre-sales are all fulfilled.

 

[timichango]

[/B]
There was a specified delivery date for both the 4.1 and 2.7 pre-sale knives as well. Here is a quick copy and paste of the email we all received.

To an extent. I'd argue that it's hard to tell if they were indicating "two months", as a hard timeline, or if "couple months" was meant to be intentionally vague.

Actually, I guess that suggests the latter.

Could just be a really unfortunate choice of diction — though you'd hope they'd know better by now.

 

[mlmcasual]

You're the first I've ever heard claim that refunds need to be "hounded out of them". That was your experience?


There is ONE complaint being leveled: S!K published a delivery time-frame at point of sale for "Monday Sales" that it failed to meet in some instances. It has since corrected the wording of the time-frame and has been working hard ever since to fulfill all existing orders. "Willful intent" would be very hard to argue.

Wrong on three of your claims.

Survive hasn't "corrected" the wording.. They only changed it. Monday sales have been moved Wednesday and now It says "a few weeks" instead of 15 days.. same difference.
http://surviveknives.com/how-to-buy/

Survive changed the wording to "a few weeks" in the middle of the ongoing delay so shows intent.

On your other claim that "some instances" I was told directly from survive that all the September orders were delayed (running behind) by over a month past the Point of sale lead time.

 

[timichango]

Wrong on all of four of your claims.

There are multiple complaints being leveld about the Monday order not being met. Timichango, and myself.

Survive hasn't "corrected" the wording.. They only changed it. Monday sales have been moved Wednesday and now It says "a few weeks" instead of 15 days.. same difference.
http://surviveknives.com/how-to-buy/

Survive changed the wording to "a few weeks" in the middle of the ongoing delay so shows intent.

On your other claim that "some instances" I was told directly from survive that all the September orders were delayed (running behind) by over a month past the Point of sale lead time.

I'll argue that shifting from a hard "2 weeks" to "a few weeks" does seem like an attempt to soften their responsibility to service a specific timeline, but I'll also agree that it seems to be deliberately vague, when reality indicates that "a few weeks" is actually "a month or two... or whatever our bottlenecks dictate this month... we have no actual idea". This is a behavioural pattern with them, and one that they really need to stop pulling. It's what's causing them all of this fallout.

On balance, I don't view it as any kind of effort to mitigate anger on missed deadlines from past sales. Seems more like (admittedly misguided) future-damage control.

Honestly, the whole thing feels a lot like a trapeze artist on a high-wire, juggling chainsaws.

 

[Tachead7075]

To an extent. I'd argue that it's hard to tell if they were indicating "two months", as a hard timeline, or if "couple months" was meant to be intentionally vague.

Actually, I guess that suggests the latter.

Could just be a really unfortunate choice of diction — though you'd hope they'd know better by now.

A couple means two and they had to have known at the time it was going to take a heck of a lot longer then that based on past/current progress/experiences. That is just not right imo. To me, I see that as intentionally being vague to milk money to cover "fixed monthly costs" as Guy calls them. The very fact that they need to sell pre-sales, seconds, UB's, LE's, exc. to pay for "fixed monthly costs" shows that they have already spent all their profit for all the paid in full knives and that scares me. That is why I cancelled my orders. The house of cards business model is not something I want to bet my hard earned money on. YMMV of course.

 

[timichango]

A couple means two and they had to have known at the time it was going to take a heck of a lot longer then that based on past/current progress/experiences. That is just not right imo. To me, I see that as intentionally being vague to milk money to cover "fixed monthly costs" as Guy calls them. The very fact that they need to sell pre-sales, seconds, UB's, LE's, exc. to pay for "fixed monthly costs" shows that they have already spent all their profit for all the paid in full knives and that scares me. That is why I cancelled my orders. The house of cards business model is not something I want to bet my hard earned money on. YMMV of course.

Yeah, no matter how you slice it, it ain't pretty.