Price, Tax, and Gratitude

Price, Tax, and Gratitude

The Braille Monitor

_June 1997

(next)

(contents)

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Cynthia Handel]

Price, Tax, and Gratitude:

Doing Business with Telesensory

Every time one of my children uses my

microwave, I receive an earful of teasing about its decrepit condition and my

obvious and immediate need for a new one. I hang on loyally to my poor old microwave

because it has given good service for a dozen years and because I dread trying

to find one today that I can actually operate. I feel real hostility when I

am forced to think about what appliance designers have done to blind people

by installing flat touch pads and burgeoning menu options.

So, although I have never used an Optacon, I can understand in small part the

anger and frustration of those who have depended for years on this portable,

flexible method of reading print. Telesensory has decided to stop making, and

in the foreseeable future to stop repairing, Optacons because too few people

are buying them. Marketing decisions must be made based on sales figures, and

consumers must live with those decisions or see producers go out of business

altogether.

But Optacon users have not lain down and taken Telesensory's decision passively.

Understandably they feel betrayed and abandoned. No other piece of technology

provides the kind of print access the Optacon does, and those who need that

particular ability face very real inconvenience and inefficiency.

So what happens when disgruntled users respond angrily to a notice that in six

months their Optacon maintenance contracts will no longer be honored? As it

happens, we have an answer to that question. Cindy and Gerry Handel, leaders

of the NFB of Pennsylvania, are both longtime Optacon users. What follows is

a transmittal letter from Cindy to Ted Young, President of the NFB of Pennsylvania,

and the letters she received from Telesensory and her response. Telesensory

Systems, Inc., has changed its name several times during the past twenty years.

People are still apt to use any of them when referring to the company. Here

are the letters:

March 15, 1997

Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Mr. Ted Young, President

NFB of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dear Ted,

I know that Telesensory is not one of your favorite companies. So I thought

you might be interested in the information I've enclosed. Jerry and I received

the enclosed letter from TSI this week. They are no longer going to offer service

agreements for our Optacons. However, they will still repair them, at cost to

us, which I'm sure will not be inexpensive. We have always been captive when

it came to their prices and services. Now it's just getting worse. The most

frustrating part is that we seem to have no power to do anything about it. The

only option, which is coming much sooner than we thought, will be to use some

other type of reading device. While they are good, they don't offer the same

flexibility that we have with Optacons for some uses. Additionally, replacing

this equipment will be costly for our own personal use at home. Then I'll have

to figure out what to do about work.

Hope you will read the information and offer any suggestions you might have

about how I can further deal with them. There is probably nothing more to be

done because there never is. Just thought you should know.

Sincerely,

Cynthia E. Handel

__________

March 10, 1997

Mountain View, California

Gerald & Cynthia Handel

Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Handel,

Thank you for your past purchases and continuing support of Telesensory.

Due to increasing cost and limited availability of service parts, we regret

to inform you that we cannot offer an extension to service agreement contracts

for some of our products that are out of production.

Therefore, when the current service agreement contract expires on your Optacon

I, Model number RID-02 on September 30, 1997, any repair or service that you

have Telesensory perform on this unit after that date will be billed to you.

Please be assured that we will continue servicing these units as long as replacement

parts are available for them.

If you have any questions in regard to the above, please do not hesitate to

contact me at the following: phone (415) 960-0920, extension 3327, Fax (415)

960-0277, Internet: [email protected]

Sincerely,

Jill E. Vickers

Lead, Order Administration

Blindness Products Division

Telesensory

That was the letter the Handels received from Telesensory, and its notification

of increased repair costs and inevitable cessation of all Optacon repairs led

to frustration and anger. After all, the Handels had hoped to keep their units

going through maintenance contracts for a good while longer. This is what Cynthia

wrote:

March 15, 1997

Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Ms. Jill E. Vickers

Lead, Order Administration

Blindness Products Division

Telesensory Systems, Inc.

Mountain View, California

Dear Ms. Vickers:

My husband Jerry and I are both Optacon users. I have had mine since February,

1974, and Jerry has used his since March, 1977. So you can see that we are not

new to our relationship with Telesensory Systems. Over the years, however, the

business relationship has always been provider oriented. We, as consumers, had

no choice and very little say about how the services were provided and fees

levied. If we were to continue to use our Optacons, we had to agree to the terms

set by TSI.

During the mid-1970's, Telesensory Systems offered regional service centers.

Optacon users could send their Optacons to a repair person, often within their

own state. The turn-around time was short, and convenience was a priority. Then,

apparently, this became too costly. So all services were moved to your headquarters

in California. Indeed you paid to have the machine sent back to us, but we had

to pay to ship the product to you for inspection or service. Having it insured

for its value and shipped second day air, which you recommended, became costly--recently

as much as $50.

Then we must consider the cost of service. I, unfortunately, had the bad experience

of having to have an array replaced while my Optacon was not covered under a

service agreement. This cost me approximately $1,700--nearly half the cost of

the piece of equipment. Since then, in approximately 1981, Jerry and I have

spent the money, apparently wisely, to purchase service agreements for our Optacons.

We have probably paid you somewhere in the area of $8,700 over the past fifteen

years for service on two Optacons.

I don't have a problem with paying for a service agreement and wish that you

still offered them. We received your letter this week indicating that, because

of the "difficulty in obtaining parts," you are no longer going to

offer a service agreement on our Optacons. You did not say that you cannot repair

our Optacons, but just that you will charge us for the service. I do have a

problem with this position.

I work for the Better Business Bureau. We are constantly advising consumers

to be wise shoppers and

compare prices and services--look for the best buy. If they are charged what

they believe is too much for a product or service, in most cases they have only

themselves to blame because they had the opportunity to compare ahead of time.

We do not have that option. Telesensory Systems is the only company, and has

always been the only company, in the country, and for that matter in the world,

who sells and services Optacons. When we've needed service, we have had no idea

whether all the parts and adjustments which have been performed were really

necessary. We have to take your word for it. We cannot get a second opinion

or tell you that we don't like the outrageous fees you choose to charge for

your precious service.

When I was told that my array needed to be replaced, I was shocked. I had been

using the Optacon and didn't notice a problem with it. I simply sent it for

a check-up and got hit with that bill. How are we now to know, when we have

to pay for service because you have eliminated your service policy, that we

will really be getting the quality service we need and that we will be charged

fairly? Are you going to publish a parts price list and labor schedule for us

to examine before we ask for service? I think not.

So, finally, you have made the decision about what we will do for the privilege

of using our Optacons. Admittedly, ours are older models. Perhaps the new models

made in collaboration with Cannon, would cost less to repair, but then that's

understandable because, although the retail price didn't come down much, they

probably cost less to make. The quality certainly isn't there. But then you

didn't want to hear that, either, when Optacon users told you about it.

So in your letter you said that we should feel free to contact you with any

suggestions. My biggest question is, whatever happened to the supply-and-demand

concept of service provision? Yes, the service will be provided on these machines

for some limited period of time, but at what cost to the consumers? As I understand

it, the Optacon was the first product TSI produced. Now that you believe it

is less convenient for you to provide products and services to Optacon users,

you're just going to drop it and move on to something else, until you tire of

that one. Think of this: although Braille can now be produced with computers

and many people use other means to read because they've been told that Braille

is slow, Perkins Braillers are still being produced. They are sold and serviced

through many companies across the country. While prices may not vary drastically,

we still have choice. Perhaps Telesensory should take a lesson from that and

consider serving their consumers rather than dictating to us.

I am sending copies of this letter, along with your letter to us, to a few people

who may be interested in what is happening with TSI and your services. They

are listed below. I would appreciate hearing from you if it is not simply a

public-relations-driven form letter. I've read them and am not interested.

Incidentally, I did read your letter to me with my Optacon.

Sincerely,

Cynthia E. Handel

cc: Marc Maurer, President

National Federation of the Blind

Ted Young, President

National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania

Barbara Pierce, Editor

Braille Monitor

There you have Cynthia Handel's letter. Understandably it was not well received

at Telesensory--it is never pleasant to be on the receiving end of anger and

criticism. It cannot have helped that accusations similar to those implicit

in Cynthia's letter have been made against Telesensory by many over the years.

In any case something seems to have snapped in Telesensory's corporate psyche.

The Handel letter apparently made its way to the desk of Larry Israel (Chairman,

President, and CEO of Telesensory). He undertook to write a response defending

the company's decision to stop production of the Optacon, praising the ability

of his employees, and criticizing Mrs. Handel for hurting their feelings. While

not particularly professional or understanding of the strain the corporate decision

had placed on those dependent on the disappearing Optacon technology, Mr. Israel's

response is chiefly astonishing for its condescending lecture on the Handels'

ingratitude for all the years of faithful service the Optacon technology and

Telesensory employees have given them. While generally accepted conventions

of civility require that our dealings with one another be courteous, the concept

that those buying products and services from producers have an obligation to

feel and express gratitude for the privilege of enjoying what they have bought

is at the very least novel. Here is Larry Israel's letter:

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Larry Israel, Chairman, President, and CEO of Telesensory Systems,

Inc.]

March 25, 1997

Mountain View, California

Cynthia E. Handel

Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Dear Ms. Handel,

Thank you for your letter of March 15 to Jill Vickers. Because of the importance

of the subject you've raised, I felt it important that I respond to you on behalf

of Telesensory and its employees.

For more than twenty-five years our company has worked diligently to provide

useful products and services to its blind customers around the world. For the

most part I think we have succeeded, although I can acknowledge that we make

mistakes, as does any company (or any human being, for that matter). If we had

not served our customers well, for the most part, we might well have disappeared

by now.

For twenty-two years, you and your husband received substantially uninterrupted

use of your devices, and they are still going strong. How many times did you

write to thank the people supporting you for all these years? Have you ever

heard of a consumer product operating and supported by the manufacturer for

that long a period of time? (You should ask your colleagues at the BBB for examples

of such companies.) Others have expressed their appreciation to people like

Teresa Lee at Telesensory for more than twenty years, and who personally and

lovingly assembled the last one to be built. If you have any thanks or appreciation

for the contributions Telesensory has made to your quality of life, your letter

is strangely silent about that.

Your letter is unfair to the 200 plus employees of Telesensory, many of whom

have dedicated ten to twenty years of their lives to serve you, the customer.

Telesensory is not one evil person. It is a group of hard-working people who

do the best they can.

I am offended by your letter, as are others of our employees who have seen it,

because it indicates a flawed attitude about our company and our employees which

is wholly unwarranted, to the extent it is based on the facts and circumstances

you offer. Your letter also seems to suggest that you believe Telesensory should

meet your needs without regard to whether it is profitable to do so.

We are a for-profit company and are not at all ashamed or embarrassed about

that. Without profits companies do not survive nor prosper, and grow and develop

new products to benefit their customers, nor offer their employees a fair living,

nor reward their shareholders for their investments which made it all possible,

unless someone subsidizes them (whether it be government or by charitable donations).

Your contention that our business has

always been provider-oriented, and that you (as consumers) have had little to

say about it, is flatly untrue, except in the very limited sense which is true

with respect to any unique product. The fact is that many, many blind people

are unwilling to purchase Optacons today, whether because they do not highly

value its functions, do not want to undertake the extensive training required,

or think that it is too high-priced. Those people have made consumer choices

and have strongly influenced what we do. The number of people who wish to buy

Optacons is very small and continues to diminish each year. That represents

the voices of consumers delivering a message to Telesensory, and the message

is: "Do not produce Optacons any more."

Yes, I understand that you and your husband, among many others, have expressed

an opposite opinion. But you are in a distinct minority, and there are simply

not enough interested customers to justify continuing product development or

production of Optacons, regrettable as that might be. The consumer has spoken!

Regarding service agreements versus charging for that service on a case-by-case

basis: if we offer you a service agreement, we have a legal and a moral obligation

to maintain a reasonable supply of parts to meet our service obligations. If

we cannot be assured of a reasonable supply of parts, it would be duplicitous

and deceitful of us to offer service agreements, and we might well be subject

to legal action from consumers.

Please refer to Ms. Vickers's letter to our customers, in which she states:

"Please be assured that we will continue servicing these units as long

as replacement parts are available for them." On a chargeable service basis,

which is the current situation, you may request service, and we may unfortunately

be unable to provide it due to unavailability of parts. After the product has

been out of production for ten years, I find nothing about such a policy to

be reprehensible, immoral, or poor business practice.

There is a reality here related to what is humanly possible for us to do, which

cannot be overcome by wishful thinking.

I also deeply resent the implication that we have in any way cheated you because

you cannot get a second opinion regarding the costs of service. You never were

presented with a bill you had to pay. Your approval was always solicited, after

our technicians advised you of what, in their professional opinion, was necessary

to permit the product to function properly. Since we are the only manufacturer

of the Optacon, there is no rational way in which we could make it possible

for you to get a second opinion, but that is hardly a sound basis on which to

impugn our integrity as a company or the integrity of our individual employees.

You say that your biggest question is, "Whatever happened to the supply-and-demand

concept of service provision?" The answer is that it is still alive and

well, and we do our best to respond to the demand for service and will do so

as long as that is reasonably possible for us. In fact, we go well beyond that,

because we accept a certain level of moral obligation to continue to provide

service for this very important product. If we were to make our decisions based

solely on economic considerations, we would have given up servicing older Optacons

many years ago, since it is not profitable for us and does not yield significant

revenue.

In most of our product lines we do have very strong competition, and our customers

do make choices about what products they will buy. We are very sensitive to

what our customers feel and believe and try to pay much attention to that. That

is the primary reason why I have written this quite lengthy letter to you, because

I believe that I have as much obligation to honor and respect the contributions

of our employees (and prevent their integrity from being unfairly impugned)

as I have an obligation to give very careful consideration to the interests

and needs of our customers, such as yourself.

While we clearly disagree on some important issues, I do respect your opinion.

If you have other thoughts on this matter which you would like to share, I would

welcome hearing further from you.

Please feel free to forward copies of this letter to Mr. Maurer, Mr. Young,

and Ms. Pierce, if you wish to do so.

Sincerely,

Larry Israel, Chairman/President/CEO

Telesensory Systems, Inc.

cc: Soloveychik

Meyer

Vickers

That was Mr. Israel's letter, and it speaks for itself. We close this exchange

of letters with Cynthia Handel's cover letter to the Braille Monitor

when she forwarded the correspondence. Here it is:

March 30, 1997

Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Mrs. Barbara Pierce, Editor

Braille Monitor

Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Mrs. Pierce,

I've enclosed a copy of the letter I received on Saturday, March 29, 1997, from

Larry Israel, President of Telesensory Systems, Inc. This is in response to

my letter of March 15, 1997, to Jill Vickers. Mr. Israel has taken my letter

very personally and has obviously read a lot into it that wasn't there. For

example, he believes that I have had the same Optacon, working well, for the

past twenty-two years. In fact, I have had it replaced once, and the array,

which is a major part of the equipment, replaced on the first Optacon I had.

He also appears to think that, if I believe that his staff has gone out of their

way to perform a service, they deserve thanks and praise for doing their jobs

in addition to payment. However, I have never been in that position with TSI.

Although they generally do an adequate job repairing Optacons, you wouldn't

know what they actually did, since their handwritten service slips are difficult

to read and written in code so that an average person who does not work for

TSI does not know what the abbreviations mean. Finally, despite what Mr. Israel

believes, I have never had a real choice about whether or not to pay one of

their bills. My only choice has been whether or not I wanted my Optacon to be

repaired so I could use it again. If I ask that they repair it, I am expected

to pay my bill, and rightly so.

So, although I don't intend to respond to Mr. Israel's protestations, I believe

you should have his letter and these few thoughts. His letter does make me wonder,

however, if I will receive their high standard of service on my Optacon when

I send it for a check-up for the final time before my service agreement runs

out.

Sincerely,

Cynthia E. Handel