- Joined
- Mar 13, 2001
- Messages
- 1,157
You sell me anything and misrepresent the product in any way and you will never sell me anything again. I am also this way about when I find out someone is misrepresenting a product in their advertising. I know a lot of people who look at things the same way.Originally posted by Ron@SOG
Hi Architect,
You might be very right, but I do prefer to be proactive and straight with people. My initial response dealt with this issue from a heartfelt, candid, and compassionate position that was in the beginning, well received until Cliff inserted the term "lie."
Cliff,
I thought someone as educated as you would have a better grasp of the English language. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of "lie":
"Motive" IS a factor in understanding the word "lie." Notice the phrase: "With intent to deceive." There was no intent to deceive. I can't be clearer than that. Maybe a conspiracy theorist might think it was a massive deception to undermine the American public or our way of life. I just don't see it that way.
It was a practice many years ago from some manufacturers to use the labels of the American steel equivalent for their Japanese made knives. SOG did the same in the "spirit" of helping the consumer understand. I'm not here to say it was the best decision. In hindsight, there could have been a better way. But I am here now to assist in the conversion process for SOG. And with the exception of you (and maybe a couple/few others), this is easily being understood and isn't a really big thing.
Steel labeling is a vague procedure at best. In most, there are ranges that each element in a steel must fit within (like 13-14.5% chromium in the AUS steels), but few steels that use exact numbers (such as 1.15% carbon in BG-42). Two steels of the same name could noticeably differ because of varying amounts of a mixture of its elements. [Also of note: there are varying opinions on what those various element ranges should be.]
Cliff, you are in a very small minority of SOG's consumer base. The average SOG consumer has at best just heard the names "440A" and "440C," but they have no valid understanding of their qualities or virtues, or could tell someone which is "better." Anyone buying our products who does know the differences and can insert AUS6 and AUS8 into the equation and simply discuss those four steels, are likely a fraction of a percent of people from SOG's consumer base (I don't know, I'd be surprised if one out of 1,000 could do this).
This is great perception after the fact, but to glibly say "SOG could have simply " is a excessive exaggeration of what really took place. There was nothing "simple" about building a company and trying to make the best choices. Every biography I've ever read of entrepreneurs and corporate executives show an historical perspective of controversial decisions (some were bad, some were risky, some were marginal).
One man's opinion (one I personally don't share). Also, in with the benefit of hindsight-based 20/20 "vision." It is very easy to cast blame, throwing around phrases like "SOG could have simply" and "[a certain] argument is weak." The position of interchanging very similar terms for the consumer's assistance makes a lot of sense; but not to someone who sees only in "black and white," to someone who is very highly educated/skilled in that particular field/industry, or to one who may have another agenda.
Hi Louis,
Thanks for your kind comments about my representation of SOG here in the forums (thanks to the others who shared his sentiment). I certainly try my best. And in this situation, I didn't make the original decision (that would have pre-dated my arrival at SOG by about 12 years), but I'm here now to assist in bringing clarification.
I'm sorry, but I do respectfully disagree. The difference between a "cubic zirconia" and "diamond" is the difference between fake and real (or cheap and expensive). The difference between the AUS steels and the 440 steels are mostly just the country of manufacture and very slight metallurgical composition.
We often talk about comparing "apples for apples" and "apples and oranges." Comparing AUS steels to 440 steels is not "apples and oranges" (something differing greatly, but both fruit) but rather "Red Delicious and Braeburn" apples (both "red" apples with similar apple characteristics). So yes, it is fair to compare these steels as similar. Some "appletologist" (I just made this word up) may differ, saying he can tell these two apples apart in a blind taste test, but to the average apple eater, they're similar ("honey, just get the big, red, round apples" you can hear a wife say to her husband from across the produce isle).
In hindsight, you are very likely right. But at the time, a really tough decision was required. It's not completely fair to use the "but others are doing it, so we should, too" but at the time, it made a lot of sense.
Not directed at anyone in particular: Rather than characterizing this very "gray" decision (many people could have gone either way) as "really dreadful and bad for the knife industry," is there any merit for making the "slight adjustment" in getting it more right now? We did make this transition to "more accurate" labeling without a public outcry. We did it on our own because we saw that the U.S. marketplace does now better understand AUS steels.
Again, did we originally make the right decision? I don't know maybe "yes," maybe "no" probably not (opinions on this will differ). But unless it is understood with the historical perspective, it's really unfair to call them "lies" and "deceit." That is so very far from the original intent!
I hope you all understand, like Louis (he said "Ron, none of this is aimed at YOU"), I'm just trying to clear the air and treat you all fairly by offering the truth candidly as I know it.
P.S. Maybe someone (Spark?) should send Cliff and me to separate corners until we can "play nicely?"
