In message <388614C14BF842D68620C77DADC90DBA@RichardHPdv6>, dated Thu, 6
Dec 2012, Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org> writes:
I recall a marketing VP saying to me some
years ago that safety is a cost without a
return. Meaning we don’t want to put any
more money into safety than we absolutely
have to.
Safety itself is a public duty, but it makes marketing sense; no-one has
so many customers that they can afford to kill a proportion. Less
cynically, who will buy from a manufacturer who has a poor safety
record?
Safety and EMC 3rd party testing costs are properly a marketing expense,
because they are incurred in order to be allowed on to the market. They
are not a charge on R&D, because the products work perfectly OK without
the testing.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
