Scuba Schools of America/Rusty Berry

[boulderjohn]

About a decade ago I retired from public education as one of the few public educators who had created and run an online school. I was quickly hired by a new online education company in the private sector, originally just to troubleshoot some problems they were having. Those problems were indeed a horror, and they had me try to fix them. Soon I was helping make decisions at the top level. I convinced them that our best market strategy was to create the best possible product and aim for the segment of the market that wanted the best possible education for their students. That meant ignoring the portion of the market that wanted the cheapest alternative without regard for instructional quality. We did that, and our reputation grew at an astounding rate. Within a couple of years we were among the top producers in the world, and we were talking with the top customers in the world.

And then we were purchased by a major conglomerate, and the original owners (not me) got rich. I was put in a high level position in the newly structured company, but everything was different. Specific sales quotas were critical, and that meant we had to expand our market. That meant we had to sell to the market we had previously shunned, even though our product was absolutely incompatible with their goals. The pressure was put on me as the curriculum director to dilute the quality of our product to reduce the costs and this make it more marketable to that new target market. they wanted me to cut corners and eliminate the key elements of instructional quality. I watched as the company sales pitches became the opposite of what we were originally, and then it was over. None of our original people, including the former owners, had any relationship with that name brand any more. I recently went to a major education conference and listened to someone pitching the latest version of a curriculum originally mapped out on my dining room table. It sucked. I almost wept.

I still naively believe that if you sell a high quality product, treat the customer with respect, and try to identify and meet their needs, then you will be a successful business. I still naively believe that if your goal in business is to screw the customer on your first shot, figuring that there will be another customer to screw after that one leaves, you will do may do well financially, but you will not be able to take any pride in who you are. At the time of your eventual demise, you will look back on a life and realize that the world was much, much worse off for your presence in it during your brief span of years. When I am about to pass, I believe I can look back over my life and feel proud of who I was and what I did. That to me is more important than whatever sleezeball deals I would have been able to accomplish to earn a living.

 

[sigxbill]

congratulations John on your accomplishment. it is unfortunate the demise of your accomplishment though.

I too still naively would like to believe that if you sell a high quality product, treat the customer with respect, and try to identify and meet their needs, then you will be a successful LDS. I still naively would like to believe that if your goal in business is to screw the customer on your first shot, figuring that there will be another customer to screw after that one leaves, your LDS will do poorly financially.

I am frustrated that all the LDS that were in my area, that were useful to me, are gone, and I can't help but wonder if the demonization of LDS selling gear that has dominated this thread has anything to do with it.

I still want to see you write your confirmation that you intended to insult me though ... seems integrity is still difficult moderator ...

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I still naively would like to believe that if your goal in business is to screw the customer on your first shot, figuring that there will be another customer to screw after that one leaves, your LDS will do poorly financially.

The LDS's that do this may make a lot of money to start, but eventually it will swing around and bite them in the rear.
It also depends on the area. In a largely populated area that has a lot of diving (like Southern California), shops could get away with this for years, and there are so many new people coming through the revolving door that it may seem that the shake down opportunity is endless.
But then in a small area like mine with a limited amount of divers, talk gets around quick. Divers talk, everybody knows everybody, and any shenanigans by the shops spreads like wildfire, at dive club meetings, at the beach, between buddies, etc.

Most of the people that I used to know that went into the few shops we have don't go into them anymore for various reasons.
Divers get very emotional about their LDS. The LDS needs to realize that they are more than just sterile retail store. People invest a lot of trust and emotion into a hobby store (especially diving) and believe they are more than just a regular store. When trust gets violated people get their feeling hurt, especially if they are relaxed and put their guard down, and then get taken.
I don't think it's really even about price, maybe in some cases, but it's more about honesty and not being tricked or taken advantage of in the early formative period when new divers are learning everything about diving including gear. It's almost like a child being molested by a person they fully trust to not do anything to hurt them.
I look back at some of the rediculous crap they sold me, and then more crap on top of that to fix the ills of the first pile of crap.
They must have gotten a good laugh when the sucker (me) left the store.
And yes, I do resent it. I only use them when I have to now.
Even years later now when I think about I still get pissed.

But in the end, we are most at fault for letting ourselves get rooked.
In many ways, and think about this, this applies to almost every situation good or bad: We get exactly what We deserve, and They get exactly what They deserve.
You get out what you put in.

 

[drrich2]

I fully expect a LDS to consider what product line to offer, ideally choose something they 'believe in' (e.g.: function, quality, manufacturer backing) and can also make money on, and to focus on delivering an effective sales pitch highlighting that product's merits.

This is what happens when I walk into a car dealership showroom. I don't expect staff at the Chevrolet place to tell me I'd be better off with a Honda Accord than a Chevy Malibu, that is true. On the other hand, I don't expect them to try to try to steer me into a Corvette, pickup truck or full-size SUV… So there's a matter of degree here.

What concerns me is the marketing teaching BoulderJohn told us about in post #316. It was frightening, but let me hit on these 2 points:

8. Identify a package of gear--specific regulators, BCDs, computers, etc.--that will bring in the top profit margin. Push everyone to those specific items, regardless of need. If you sell a high number of specific items, the manufacturers will usually sell you them at a discount in the future, thus increasing sale margins.
9. Require your instructors to purchase those items identified in #8 and wear all of them while instructing as their "instructor uniform." Require them to tell the students that as instructors, they have the freedom to buy anything, but they want the best. They therefore carefully selected every item they use while instructing because it is the best there is. (The only item on our required uniform list I would purchase and use for myself was the wet suit. I would have been required, for example, to say that I use a specific brand of alternate air source on the inflator hose because it's the best way to dive, even though I personally would never buy one if given the choice)

Basically, either the instructors lie, or the shop only hires instructors for whom the lie is the truth, they actually eat the dog food/drink the Kool Aide so to speak, and thus it's not technically a lie.

Sort of like if a Chevy dealership screens job applicants and only hires people who think the malibu is better than the accord and can thus tell customers that without lying. Interesting concept.

Which gets back to the question of whether students believe instructors are primarily acting as an agent of the student (e.g.: teacher, mentor), or shop (e.g.: hawking gear, including suboptimal choices)?

When I or a family member are in the hospital, we don't expect the Doctor to order lots of needless tests just to run up the hospital's profits because we've got insurance, and the Doctor works there. A Doctor who did could be despised. I don't expect quite the same ethical standards from retail salesmen, but perhaps similarly there's a perceived conflict of interest between instructor as student-advocate vs. employed instructor as shop advocate.

Considering the points being debated in this post, all other things being equal, I'd much prefer to refer a prospective OW student to an independent instructor. And I'm wondering if, given the choice locally between PADI people and SSI, one ought to consider a bit of favoritism toward PADI & other agencies that provide for independent instructors, over SSI, which ties them to shops.

Richard.

 

[boulderjohn]

I still want to see you write your confirmation that you intended to insult me though ... seems integrity is still difficult moderator ...

Sorry. I did not realize that I needed to confirm that I believe you and I have a very different sense of business ethics. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

I said our sense of business ethics was different, and that is all I said. Whether or not that is an insult is up to your interpretation. You might have taken it as a compliment. In fact, from the way you derided so many of my responses, I assumed you approve of the fact that our ethics are different and therefore see that as being complimentary.

 

[flots am]

Basically, either the instructors lie, or the shop only hires instructors for whom the lie is the truth, they actually eat the dog food/drink the Kool Aide so to speak, and thus it's not technically a lie.

It doesn't have to be a lie. Quite often, "good stuff" is actually the same "good stuff" the shop sells.

For example, although I have a mix of different brands of stuff, my favorite regs are my Atomic M1s, which although expensive, don't freeflow in the water here, which is below 40F for probably half the year, or in the ripping current of the St. Lawrence, when facing up-stream. Same thing goes for my drysuit. I have a nice once. It's warm and doesn't leak and holds up well, and I'm certain it's sold at least a few divers on the brand even though it's a little pricey.

Our shop sells most of the brands of equipment that I use, and I'm certain that students have purchased stuff they have seen me use. I don't see it as a lie or any sort of deceit. It's actually good stuff. If it wasn't, I wouldn't dive with it, and if I do dive with it, I see no problem with anybody else buying the same thing.

flots.

 

[boulderjohn]

Our shop sells most of the brands of equipment that I use, and I'm certain that students have purchased stuff they have seen me use. I don't see it as a lie or any sort of deceit. It's actually good stuff. If it wasn't, I wouldn't dive with it, and if I do dive with it, I see no problem with anybody else buying the same thing.

You may have missed the part where instructors were required to buy and wear equipment they would not in fact choose to own and then tell students that they did choose to use it, and they chose to use it because it is the best.

Do you not see that as a lie? I know the owner of the shop I worked for when that happened said it was not a lie, so it is open to interpretation, I guess.

 

[flots am]

You may have missed the part where instructors were required to buy and wear equipment they would not in fact choose to own and then tell students that they did choose to use it, and they chose to use it because it is the best.

Actually, I did miss that.

Do you not see that as a lie? I know the owner of the shop I worked for when that happened said it was not a lie, so it is open to interpretation, I guess.

Did he also tell you that fire wasn't hot? There doesn't seem to be a lot of interpretation involved, and I can't imagine lying about it.

There is very little actual "bad" equipment on the market (I'll make an exception for anything that uses velcro to retain weights, which I consider to be Russian-Roulette), but there is quite a bit that isn't as good as it could be or is inappropriate for particular conditions or divers.

flots

 

[sigxbill]

Sorry. I did not realize that I needed to confirm that I believe you and I have a very different sense of business ethics. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

I said our sense of business ethics was different, and that is all I said. Whether or not that is an insult is up to your interpretation. You might have taken it as a compliment. In fact, from the way you derided so many of my responses, I assumed you approve of the fact that our ethics are different and therefore see that as being complimentary.

John - The point is that I agreed with you - that customers should not feel duped - which is the SAME ethics as you on that point. You contradicted me, asserting that somehow I think customers should be duped, and asserted that duping customers was my level of ethics.

Both you and I already wrote many times that duping customers was by definition unethical. You went on about how your ethics don't allow you to dupe customers, and then you asserted that we don't have the same ethics on this point. Then by definition, you have insulted me. Your goal was to paint me in a light in which I am not, to try and make me look bad to other readers.

Personally, I think you try hard to be ethical. I agreed with you on many points and even clicked like on one of your posts. I characterize my actions as carrying on an objective debate about what will help new divers stick with diving best. It appears as though you have become so anti-gear sales that anyone who politely suggests an alternative view, such as ethically based gear sales, causes you to lose some of the high ethics I do believe you have.

Your response in post 355 was carefully designed to conceal what the original subject was - which was that we had the same ethics regarding duping customers, and then you 'patronized' me to further discredit me - more poor ethics if one is participating in a polite debate with the same goal - to find what best benefits new divers ...

 

[boulderjohn]

sigsixbill--perhaps I misunderstood your points. I agree that you said, as I did, that customers should not feel they have been duped. My disagreement is from the rest of your posts, some of which suggest strongly to me that you believe it is OK to dupe customers, as long as they don't realize it has happened. That is where we disagree. Your "buyer's remorse comments struck me that way in particular--the only problem with the OP in this thread is that she figured out she had been duped and regretted it.