Earlier I wrote: My guarantee protects me because I know that I can get the job done.
Nick wrote: This is where I disagree - it does not protect you. All someone has to do is not be good at following directions or make less than a real attempt at things or just claim that they aren't satisfied.
LC: Yep it's real simple for a client to get a full refund from me. But no one has ever asked. Hmm, I wonder why that is?
Nick wrote: It doesn't protect you one bit.
LC: What protects me is my ability to motivate and train them and their dogs. The guarantee is for the client, not me. When I do my job, I'm protected. If I didn't, I wouldn't be.
Nick wrote: What if they aren't satisfied because their English Mastiff doesn't recall as fast as the neighbours Border collie? Is that a valid complaint?
LC: If they're not satisfied, yes. Many businesses used to work like this, some still do. Sears is a prime example. It used to be that if you purchased something from them and you didn't like it, no matter what the reason, you could return it and get your money back. But not any more. They went from a service oriented organization to a product oriented organization. This is also shown by their radical shift in customer service. It used to be that you had no trouble finding a sales person. They'd flock to help you. If you had a question about how something worked, they find the answer. Nowadays you have to hunt them down and wait for them to finish their cell phone conversation.
Nick wrote: So all success or failure is solely based on you and has nothing whatsoever to do with the client and the dog?
LC: That's what I've been saying for several posts now.
Earlier I wrote: Since I'm the one with the money back guarantee it sure looks to me as if I'm the one who's sure of his training. You've already got the "lazy client" excuse ready and waiting to go.
Nick wrote: Actually that is where you are wrong. I gave you a hypothetical. Nothing more - nothing less.
LC: You've got the excuses ready even for a hypothetical situation! LOL.
Earlier I wrote: But I've had some clients that were as dumb as a box of rocks.
Nick wrote: Nice one Lou! Yet if someone else says it - you call it an excuse.
LC: No excuses with my guarantee. They're satisfied or they get their money back. From a business standpoint, it's makes far more sense than your guarantee. You're saddled with your " hypothetical lazy, not fully committed" clients for the life of their dog. They can keep wasting your time for years, getting you to schedule session after session, wasting your time and taking you away from new clients. Actually you know that they won't, because they're lazy. You're guarantee is really just so much lip service. You know that they won't come back many times, they're too lazy and lack commitment. It's a bit like the huge rebates that many companies offer knowing full well that few people will jump through all the hoops to get the money that's been offered.
Nick wrote: yet you allow yourself to talk about people who pay you money for a service this way. I wonder did you tell them that they were dumb as rock but that you'd take their money anyway?
LC: Yes actually I did tell them that they were the dumbest clients I've ever had. It became a standing joke and that's how I introduce them to others. I took their money, gave them their service and they were completely satisfied with their results.
Nick wrote: The point that you fail to see is that some people are not good at following instruction and will make mistakes.
LC: Nick I see that perfectly. I live on the same planet that you do. I work with people from the same gene pool as you. Yet somehow I mange to get my clients trained to their satisfaction. It's called "service." Some people offer it and some don't.
Nick wrote: I remember you repeating over and over that it isn't the fault of the collar or the manufacturer if it is misused. Seems like your trying to wiggle here now just to hold your point. The concept is the same whether it is written word on paper or spoken in a lesson –
LC: The concept is not even loosely related. The manufacturer is selling a product. I'm selling a service. Their responsibility is to see that the tool operates properly and lasts a certain amount of time. Mine is to satisfy the owner/handler as to his training. I'm sorry that you can't see this difference. I think this attitude is responsible for the decline of service across the board in nearly every service industry that exists. . One of the most annoying things is to discover that the person who's supposed to help you, whether it's to find the right crescent wrench, work on your car, or bring you dinner at a restaurant, is that they regard you an annoyance, an interruption in their spare time while at work. Instead of realizing that you're the reason that they have a job, they're pissed off when you walk in the door because it means they have to do some work.
Nick wrote: if directions aren't followed mistakes will be made and if the person providing the service has done all they can to ensure that people are armed with information that is needed - the rest is out of their hands until the next session so things can be cleared up. Otherwise everyone would get everything perfectly all the time - and it doesn't work that way.
LC: I've never claimed anywhere, anytime that my clients or I achieve perfection "all the time." All I've said that they're satisfied with what they receive. Interestingly I offer the same guarantee for my defensive firearms training business. Never had to give any refunds there either.
Nick wrote: but really you don't think that sometimes people want the results without the effort or doing the right thing? You don't think that some people want to house break their puppy but don't want to use a crate?
LC: Of course there are those people out there. And when I've come across them I've trained them the results they want aren't going to happen unless they do certain things. Little things like follow my instructions. It's made quite clear that if they want good results, "do as I say and as I show you." If you want some other results, do something else. Part of motivating is persuading people that (for example) you can't housebreak without a crate. As I've said many times already, training isn't just about the dog. It's more about the owner/handler.
Earlier I wrote: Nice try at evasion Nick. And so I'll just rephrase, At some point in his life your demo dog won't perform up to his usual standards; when it does what will you tell the clients who have just witnessed this "sub par" performance?
Nick wrote: No evasion here Lou.
LC: This is a perfect example of "begging the question." You're evading and avoiding giving an answer to a question that we all know will happen someday. There are a couple of little things called honesty, fallibility, and real life. At some point in your demo dog's life he won't perform as well as he has at some other time. That's just life. He may be sick, he may be having an off day, of you may be having a bad day yourself and doing something to influence him. When that happens your potential client won't be impressed.
Nick wrote: and even if he does one day that'll be ok.. heck he's entitled to a bad day.. we all are. And if it were to happen
LC: In reality this should be, "And
when it happens." When it does, if you've based your credibility on your demo dog, bye bye clients.
Nick wrote: the other factors I mentioned earlier being word of mouth recommendations from past clients
LC: You're assuming that people actually do this. Often they don't. Especially for your clients who are "lazy and uncommitted." Especially with your inability and lack of desire to motivate them, requiring instead that they bring everything to the table. Many people will just show up and watch your dog work. When he doesn't, poof they're gone.
Nick wrote: 99 % of people calling aren't interested in a demo anyway.
LC: So all this talk about the vital importance of having a demo dog only exists for 1% of your clients? ROFLMAO.
Nick wrote: But I offer it as a courtesy.
LC: Earlier you said that if a trainer doesn't have a demo dog it should "raise red flags." But now you say that for 99% of your clients, it's not even necessary and that they're not even "interested." Now it's just a "courtesy." This is at best, inconsistent.
Nick wrote: But since you keep bringing this up and are certain that failure is bound to happen maybe it's best that you aren't bringing your dogs out to be seen. After all you are certain it will happen - there must be a reason.
LC: Notice which one of us has used the word "failure" repeatedly. Now you insinuate that my dogs don't perform. Anytime you want to learn how to do a building or area search, drop on by. I "guarantee" that you'll be satisfied. LOL.
Earlier I wrote: From the start our disagreement has been about ONLY one thing, the necessity of having a demo dog. My question simply and logically follows, what happens when he falls on his face?
Nick wrote: Again the fear of the dog failing!
LC: No "fear of failing" at all. It's called reality. It's going to happen at some time. Unless of course you're the perfect trainer whose dogs perform perfectly all the time. Are you that guy?
Nick wrote: Are you that unsure of your dog or your abilities as a trainer? Why are you so certain that the dog will fail.
LC: Are you so certain that you dog will be perfect all the time every time? If so, please let us know. I'll call you a liar and offer you a challenge that could enrich you by $1,000.
Nick wrote: so since you are so used to having such a high standard - why are you certain the dog will fail.
LC: I've simply asked what you do when your demo dog doesn't perform to his best. There's a vast gulf between that and "failing." In fact, in this context, except for when I've quoted you, you're the only one in this discussion who's used the word "fail."
Earlier I wrote: No wonder you don't offer anyone their money back. You don't even know your job! Or you're too burnt out to bother doing it. A good trainer has to be able to motivate the owner to want the dog that they can have. If you're not capable of that . . .
Nick wrote: In fact I remeber a couple of years ago you calling me and leaving me a msg on my voicemail about how you didn't have a website yet but wanted to have one. You mentioned that you liked mine so much that you wanted to direct people to mine to see proper use of the remote collar in the video clips and so on... saying how the dogs looked good on the site and the people in the clips and dogs were working well and so forth... It was a nice msg in fact and I was touched that you took the time to look me up and call me leaving such nice remarks. Now since I am disagreeing with you . . .
LC: I'm learning more about you Nick with every post, both here and on other lists. More about your training and more about how you treat and regard your clients.
Nick wrote: want to take some cheap shots... be my guest... seems to be right up your alley LOL. I'm too young, too happy and too fulfilled doing what I love too be burnt out. Maybe you're projecting? Or maybe you just like to play dirty when you feel that your points aren't strong enough.
LC: Nick if you're so unsure of your abilities to train dogs, motivate people and get the job done then don't offer a money back guarantee. I always have and will continue. If you feel the need for a demo dog to "prove your ability" then have one. But to say that if a trainer doesn't have one that "red flags" should be raised is bullshit. That's all this discussion has been about from the start.
Lou Castle has been kicked off this board. He is an OLD SCHOOL DOG TRAINER with little to offer.
Page 4 of 6 First<<23456>>
Re: finding a suitable trainer
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
