Second letter to Porsche:
Dear
Ben - Really? Is that the Porsche Customer Commitment? How exactly is this
Customer Relations Management?
It
appears that the point of my letter has been lost in the translation. So let
this letter be a bit more explicit. Porsche was given an opportunity to do the
right thing. It was an opportunity to turn losing a customer into gaining a
champion. Your response tells me you have chosen to let go of a customer that
would have otherwise been loyal for potentially another 20 years.
What
is a life-time customer worth to Porsche? What is the cost of losing a
life-time customer compared to getting a new customer?
If
you were to do a cost-benefit analysis on that, it doesn't stack up. The cost
to Porsche of leaving your customer by the side of the road and losing him
forever may be $0 now. But factor in the future loss of margin on sales,
service and parts on all the cars he would have bought. Of course the second
hand market may not be as lucrative to you, but surely you realise it is
necessary to ensure upgrading existing customers to new cars.
Now
add into your math the customer who was left by the side of the road that tells
everyone who will listen not to buy a Porsche. If he steers only one or two
potential customers away, what's the cost of that? With viral marketing today,
there's a strong chance that this could get out of hand.
Have
a look at
- this video of a 911 IMS failure
that got over 500,000 views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC4Rpl0_dW8 while
- this video of United got 13.6
million views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo and they ended up having to do
the right thing after the horse had bolted.
According
to my math, the cost of losing just one customer is far more than $20,000.
Imagine the cost of a good letter going viral. I already have about 50 people
eagerly awaiting an update on this saga. And I have two people who have decided
not to buy a Porsche - kid you not. Now imagine the potential damage when
motoring publications decide to have some fun and when academics start using it
as a case study of what not to do. I know a few academics and journos that will
have a field day with this. Who doesn't love a good story.
Point
1: So
just to be clear - the first point is that on economic terms, it would have
paid for Porsche to foot the bill to minimise the damage to Porsche's
reputation that was once tied to quality.
This
leads us to the second point of quality. When someone, who has plenty of
options to choose from, spends 2-3 times what they would spend on an alternate
luxury car, it is 'reasonable' for them to have higher expectations. My
expectation in buying a Porsche was that I was buying something of higher
quality. Quality is achieved by paying attention to detail. So let's explore
that:
1.
Your letter has my name spelt incorrectly. Thanks Been.
2.
You say my car is 11 years old. According to math, that would be impossible.
3.
Forget the math, we're talking about an engine. Engines are not judged by age,
but by mileage. This engine had only 85,000 kms when it failed and it had been
serviced as per Porsche's schedule. Let me point out that I had, prior to this
incident, spent over $5.5K on replacing numerous parts - none of which I hold
Porsche responsible for because I understand wear and tear, although that's a
lot of money for just one year.
4.
Forget maintenance. The part that failed had nothing to do with maintenance. It
has to do with poor design and quality which is why this part has been
re-designed a number of times and has been now completely designed out of the
engine in the latest models. Let’s not try to kid anyone here.
Point
2: The
argument you present does not stack up. Any reasonable judge or jury will agree
that they would not buy a car that has an engine that only lasts 85,000 km.
Even if this was the case, they would surely not buy this car for the kind of
money asked in the second hand market when it already had 70,000 kms.
A
key provision (s54) in Australian Consumer Law 'is a statutory guarantee of
acceptable quality enforceable against the suppliers of goods (i.e. retailers,
dealerships, etc.), as well as manufacturers.' Your North American operation
finally saw the light, albeit after a class action case http://www.imsporschesettlement.com/, to agree to do the
right thing. Is that what it's going to take in Australia? If so, move to point
three.
Point
3:
There is legal precedent and a legal framework that favours customers like me.
We may be stupid, but we're not dumb.
All
of that aside, it boggles the mind that Porsche is willing to allow its
customer stories to be 'You're not in good hands when you buy a Porsche.
Porsche doesn't sell quality and high performance. Porsche sells ticking time bombs
that will cost you a bomb. And when they pop, Porsche will leave you by the
side of the road.' Because that's the true customer experience - just search
the web and I can vouch for it.
So,
1.
I have already initiated discussions with a law firm to understand what is
involved in a class action case.
2.
I will be sharing my story with anyone who cares to listen and will be
targeting specific motoring media, web sites and academics.
3.
I will be approaching the appropriate government authorities.
It
is human to err. My error was believing that I was paying for quality when I
was buying a Porsche. Everybody makes mistakes, but when we don't learn from
them... well you know the term for that. You can only fool the stupidest among
us for only a period of time.
The
question is whether we are going to correct our errors before it's
all too late?
Over
to you, once again... Please note that I will proceed down the path outlined
above in a week, unless I hear back positively from you before then. I hope nothing
is lost in translation.
UNFORTUNATELY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT WAS UNWARRANTED. HERE'S BEN'S SECOND RESPONSE. THIS TIME HE GOT THE CUSTOMER NAME RIGHT...
Ok... next steps:
1. Lodge a case with Department of Fair Trading - DONE... stay tuned.
2. Speak to lawyers of North American Class Action settlement - DONE... Turns out Porsche settled the case very quickly. If there was nothing wrong with their cars, why would they?
3. Evaluate merits of class action case in Australia - Currently talking to a few law firms... stay tuned.

