More than merit.....
It work for us with one customer even if we had to process paper POs for 6
months before they drop their request for EDI incentive.
Good luck to all of you that can resist against those 800lb gorillas.
Robert Richer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen O'Shaughnessy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Charging a customer for EDI ???????
>
> The error in their logic is that both side realize a savings. If the
> customer takes your savings away, you lose the attractiveness of EDI. So
> you stop. Now the customer lose their savings also. In theory anyhow.
>
> The idea to threaten them with going back to paper has a lot of merit.
>
> Steve O
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J. Glenn Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:00 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Charging a customer for EDI ???????
> >
> >
> > If I understand the customer's mindset it goes something like
> > this. The
> > customer requires the vendor to do EDI. The enticement is
> > two-fold, (1) you
> > want to continue to do business and (2) there will be cost savings.
> >
> > For a while all is well. Then the customer discovers they
> > need to make
> > increase margins. Somebody thinks, hey the vendor is saving
> > money by using EDI
> > we are entitled to some of that savings. Being the lowly
> > vendor you don't have
> > a lot of recourse so you grin and bear it.
> >
> > Eventually somebody gets the idea of charge backs and the
> > bandit without a mask
> > game starts all over again.
> >
> > "Beecher, Anthony" wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I have only heard of charges for NOT using EDI.
> > >
> > > Why don't you bluff and float the idea of using paper? See
> > if they suddenly
> > > discover the "benefit of EDI".
> > >
> > > Anthony Beecher
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Divoky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > We have all heard of extra charges for sending paper
> > documents but not
> > > vice versa, I suspect. If the use of EDI and any possible
> > EDI charges were
> > > not specified in the original contract,
> > > someone slipped up.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Pokraka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Now that the deal is struck, supplier comes back and
> > > > says that EDI is of no benefit to them, but merely a
> > service that they
> > > > provide as part of the package, thus they will charge
> > their customer for
> > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > ==============================================================
> > =========
> > > To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
> >
> > --
> > Glenn Thompson
> > Programmer/Analyst
> > American Trouser, Inc.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > ==============================================================
> > =========
> > To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
> >
>
> =======================================================================
> To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
