@Filemon@Perry_1 Whilst we are going though all the anti FDM processes on here I thought I’d go through the material selector wizard to show how difficult it is to get an FDM result. I will post a tree displaying the results when I get chance but in the meantime check out the attachment. For my first try I thought I would try one that MUST be FDM…
I selected "Function, then “Form and fit”, then for accuracy chose “LOW” (this must be rough arsed FDM right?)… then the result still gives one last ditch effort to take you to SLS!!! WOW, just WOW!
Yes, I have been saying this for a week. This is my repeat customer getting that dialogue “can I help you choose a material”.
Then everything there has the solid intent of harvesting my customer…
Its not JUST that the subjective terminology is bad, its that it was shown automatically to a customer I earned. Repeat customer, customer from facebook, customer from my business card, customer from my ads…
The statement that customers only choose FDM because of price is my favorite.
Plus, the material selector is so subjective. Just what does form and fit mean, anyway? Where are the advantages of FDM listed?
The whole massive thing was done with the sole intent of moving customers from FDM to higher $.
They will say they are focusing on a more “professional” market now. That’s what Makerbot said just before they lost their market.
But focusing on professional customers translates to “lets take FDM customers and try to convince them to spend more money.” That is not focusing on professional customers. That’s harvesting already happy FDM customers.
Instead of going for the positive, they reversed it. They went negative.
I am not sure I can find a case where a company cannibalized their vendors and their end customers so harshly.
Hi Simon, I’m available at 3h Amsterdam time today but only for 20min. Alternatively I’ve send you an invite for another option. Let me know what you prefer. Cheers
My apologies. I found out about this just now. Didn’t have email notifications on anymore after my inbox literally had 50+ emails related to it. Will there be any way to receive a summary of the topics discussed? As well was there any other date possible for the discussion? Thanks again, -Parker Drouillard
Thanks for the summary Perry.
if I’m honest, the only wording I’m actually upset about is the misleading statement that 'FDM Hubs can only guarantee XXX Tolerances" When in reality, this is not FDM printers that are guaranteeing those standards, it’s 3D Hubs. IMO the wording should be “3D Hubs can only guarantee XXX Tolerances, as these are the general guidelines enforced by us on hubs. If additional tolerances are needed it is advised that you contact a hub/professional for more information on the subject”
Just something more constructive to be said in case customers are in fact looking for higher tolerances or even better surface finishes.
I just posted a summary, and my expectations of possible outcomes at the top of the thread…
Can you get any of those folks who emailed you to come on here?
I have a ton of emails on this issue. I am having difficulty getting those folks to come on here, for various reasons I would rather not say at this time…
@filemon is willing to discuss further. However, so little time was allotted and he is very busy. I encourage you to push for a direct discussion with him, but really feel the real way to get results is still going to be open daylight discussions about the issues and motivations here.
Also, if you reply to the thread directly under the featured thread, your messages will rise above the old ones…
Here is my take away from the phone conference today with 3dhubs @filemon and several hubs.
@Filemon took input from a few hub owners, mostly those that were vocal here. This was a scheduled 1 hour meeting, which he was kind enough to actually let run over, even though he had previously said he had a hard stop. I thank him for that.
Obviously, 1 hour was not enough to get into all that needed to be discussed, but it was a start.
The bulk of the discussion was around the FDM guidelines, and how that is worded. There is some likelyhood that wording will get massaged.
Additionally, the dialogue that pushes a customer away from a hub was discussed. This is likely to get changed, I got the impression it was not going over well.
I THINK.
I think that the Prototyping and Prototyping Materials language is still cast in stone. The only way that is going to get changed is if there is enough pushback from FDM hubs. Even though this is “only a test” it was pretty clear to me it is going to be policy.
The only way to change this is if enough hubs speak up. (Most do not know about it, as most do not place orders, and most do not read this forum.)
BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE AWARE PLEASE, if you read this forum, even if you have posted in this thread before, please keep pushing back. Or it will be the way it is. Its not about finding an alternative, or taking your hub down, its about getting the message to 3dhubs that this is a bad, bad mistake for them to be making.
I DO BELIEVE that enough pressure on 3dhubs will get them to see how this is denigrating to the FDM hubs who do good work.
PLEASE POST A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE, so your message is not lost below. Feel free to reiterate your concerns, so this thread does not get lost on the talk page. I really do not want to have to start another thread!
@Filemon Quick question for you, howcome 3D Hubs doesn’t push customers to make inquiries more often? I know I’ve only ever gotten a few, and I myself actually have no clue how to place one. They’re an awesome way for customers to seek more information about any given field of 3D Printing, and what to expect. As well, it (From my experience) Has always increased customer satisfaction having someone walking them through the process insuring they get exactly what they need for their specific project.
This also takes away from the issue of hub’s rankings dropping when customers come to them with unreasonable expectations. Nobody likes letting anybody down, but sometimes customers just don’t know what to expect, or what is required for the process. Inquiries really help this issue and give customers a much superior experience.
I just feel instead of adding more and more ‘guidelines’ and ‘suggestions’ automatically provided by the site, more one on one contact with an actual person from an actual hub would help customers to get exactly what they need. Also avoids all these issues people have about interpretation of wording throughout the site.
The takeaway from this about my suggestion; Educate potential customers about how to use the inquiry process. Show them more that it is a possibility for them to get quick advice from practically any hub on the site! It’s an awesome tool and I hate to see it going so unused.
@PepCo_Parker Not to answer for them, I will tell you that 3dhubs in the past found that uploading a model to start the process had much more stickiness than enquiries, so that may explain why they de-empahsized that method of contact to the point it is hard to find.
Yes, that is terrible wording. I think they may be willing to change that.
There was discussion about adding some copy around “if additional tolerances are needed…”
------------------
I can’t imagine, after looking at your hub, why you would be fine with your hub being called Prototyping Only and your plastics as being called Prototyping Materials. Make no mistake, all these changes were made en masse as part of a holistic marketing image to denigrate FDM printing, to emphasize the SLS and SLA hubs. I would think you would object to all of it.
Here’s a feature suggestion (which I will also post over at the user voice page) https://3dhubs.uservoice.com how about you also let hubs access a widget like the “order print” button that let’s us also put “send enquiry” or along those lines. I would put this on my personal website as i do the 3D Print Order widget already, which is front and centre. How about that to encourage more enquiries through 3D Hubs which as hub owners we could then get more conversion over time by welcoming these enquiries and explaining and answering any questions potential customers have, which means they are more likely to then place an order. I often get questions sent direct to my email address but I would happily replace my contact form with a 3D Hubs enquiry button.
Definitely agree that there needs to be some change in the wording here. If I were a customer who knew nothing about 3D printing, I would most likely not choose this option.
@Perry_1 Sorry I had to leave the meeting. I honestly thought it would be done in 30 mins. I didn’t realise we would be discussing so much stuff. The bit I most wanted to change was the “Prototyping” wording. I still believe that “General Purpose Plastics” title and “Fast and Affordable parts” would be way more accurate. What was the outcome with this?
Interesting thoughts @PepCo_Parker@champion3d - it’s true what @Perry_1 points out that inquiries generally don’t ‘convert’ well and we’ve seen the normal order process perform better. Certainly can’t hurt to review the enquiry flow though to see if we can improve performance. will put it up for discussion on our end. thanks again!
Thanks for joining the call @Perry_1 (and others of course).
Indeed, we will discuss the FDM dialogue message today / tomorrow on our end and will adjust (or even remove). Will keep you posted on that.
Completely open to adjusting the FDM guidelines as well, where a majority of Hubs feel it should. For this I’d need specific suggestions (for example the ‘typical dimensional accuracy’), so feel free to post / mail me about those.
Finally, for the “Prototyping Plastics” designation we have to wait for the variation experiment to end. Also, other variations are lined up for the next few months where, for example, FDM is simply called “FDM”. It’s really too early to tell what’s the best decision here.
@Filemon I think you were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. “Prototyping Plastics” isn’t only insulting, it is incorrect! It doesn’t matter if the data says it works because it is wrong to claim that the actual plastic is just for prototyping. A waste of a test due to incorrect terminology… ABS is not just a prototyping plastic. Polycarbonate isn’t a prototyping plastic…
They are “General Purpose Plastics”!!!
I just Googled “Prototyping Plastics” to get a list but unsurprisingly I couldn’t find one because nobody groups plastics by just one application. Apart from 3D Hubs which Google gave this link… https://www.3dhubs.com/material-group/prototyping-plastic
The prototyping plastics page also stated “rigid plastics”. What about flexible filaments available on FDM?
Also the comment “Prototyping Plastics are printed using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology” is incorrect. Is this assuming that nobody uses SLS for prototyping? I know that many people use SLS for prototypes including myself in the past. The term “Prototyping Plastics” is just wrong!
I can’t seem to get over this. The information about FDM is full of errors and misconceptions.
Hi Simon, I scheduled a call today at 17.30h Amsterdam time. that’s my only possibility for today. If preferred, we can reschedule for tomorrow as well
This seems to fit along the lines of 3D Hubs interest in moving toward commercial printers and away from small shops. No one should really be surprised. The fact that they made this move to push most of the “little guys” aside without a word, and now are reluctant to change that stance is just further evidence of what is fairly common industry knowledge. It has even been reported by 3D Printing media sources.
It kind of seems like they are trying to drive us away on purpose. The new quality guidelines we just agreed to, then turn around and imply our product is inferior? What the…?
Then this whole business of using repeat customers as a way to determine if we show up in results?
The outcome of the meeting did nothing to change my mind that they are NOT listening to our issues on this. @filemon continues to cling to his “testing” meme and I did not feel he was listening to our concerns, or the concerns of most of the hubs that I am discussing this with whose voice I was trying to put forth.
I still feel 3dhubs is really is not listening to how we feel about “protoyping” and “prototyping materials”, or is unwilling to see why we feel it is so bad.
As I said in my first post the day this thread started, this change was done specifically to move customers to higher margin means of printing and has little to do with anything else. @filemon continued to use his canned phrase “No fewer FDM orders”. He posted that exact phrase here in this thread, and repeated it several times during the call, with that exact wording. This wording is designed to make us feel better. We shouldn’t. I don’t trust the “test” or the wording of “No fewer FDM orders.”
I personally think misleading the market will cost customers, and that 3dhubs is attempting to harvest the growth of the market by pushing customers away from FDM. “No fewer FDM orders” is a pretty bad goal, and easy to hit. What he will not say is “Hey, this is working, because 3dhubs is getting customers to move to higher $ prints from FDM” when that is the real goal, or they would not have made this change, and would have responded to our feedback on it, and would have shown some loyalty to us.
Again, they are not listening, or hubs are not protesting enough. (Pointing out again that most of the hubs are not going to see most of this, so the voice of those that hang out on talk should be considered a relevant sampling…)
If people don’t really, really protest, I think it is here to stay. This will drive competitors, split the market, etc.
There are a lot of other things they won’t say out loud, or in public.
Perry I don’t mean to be rude, but being bluntly honest I think you’re beating a dead horse here. You’ve starting coming across somewhat hostile and I honestly don’t think it’s doing anything to strengthen your point other than obfuscating this chat to the point that it’s hard to have actual discussions on what can be done about the matter. If I had any advice it would be to just step back and take a breath for a second. I understand you are frustrated, but repeating the same thing over and over is in reality accomplishing nothing. That being said this extends out to everyone on these forums, they’re meant for collaboration. I just think you should lay back on your comments towards @filemon and @3DHubs and give them some time to react. It’s not something that can be impulsively done, they have to consider all the options, if it’s worth their time, then troubleshoot solutions, fease them out, get them approved, and then implement.
Perry I don’t mean to be rude, but being bluntly honest I think you’re beating a dead horse here. You’ve starting coming across somewhat hostile and I honestly don’t think it’s doing anything to strengthen your point other than obfuscating this chat to the point that it’s hard to have actual discussions on what can be done about the matter. If I had any advice it would be to just step back and take a breath for a second. I understand you are frustrated, but repeating the same thing over and over is in reality accomplishing nothing. That being said this extends out to everyone on these forums, they’re meant for collaboration. I just think you should lay back on your comments towards @filemon and @3DHubs and give them some time to react. It’s not something that can be impulsively done, they have to consider all the options, if it’s worth their time, then troubleshoot solutions, fease them out, get them approved, and then implement.
@PepCo_Parker Thank you for not being rude and being bluntly honest, while offering your opinion. I am doing the same, and have the right to do so.
I would like to point out I was answering a specific question that was directed specifically to me. I was not beating a dead horse, but was answering a specific request for an opinion.
@filemon is a big boy. He can take it, so can I. He even said to continue the discussion here on the phone call, if you recall.
As for repeating myself, that is a legitimate form of protest on a forum when responses are sparse. Collaboration requires response.
I have no intention of stepping back. Do you recommend the same for @Steelmans whose question I was answering? And other hubs that show lost business in this thread? Do you suggest they step back for several months?
You state going back to the other wording is something that can not be impulsively done. I must disagree, they can change back from the at any time, otherwise it would be a pretty poor test.
Silence will get us nowhere. Sorry. The last time this type of change was made, it floated into thread history pretty rapidly, and was simply ignored. I am just trying to keep this from happening again.
I have been exceedingly civil, but sometimes facts and opinions can be difficult to read, particularly when you are questioning someones motives, as I have done here. My goal is still honorable, to protect our market, and to prevent 3dhubs from making what I consider to be a very big mistake. My motivations are clean.
I’m not saying to step back*and do nothing*, but I do know if this was a group of people collaborating, one person constantly bringing up the same points without taking a break quickly tires and frustrates others. In this situation, the issue ends up being people have to scroll for several minutes to sift through all the repetition to get to the progress. You are right that you were answering a specific question, but the answer was essentially just a repeat of your other post and summaries. This is a very active forum, and it’s great to see collaboration, but I do believe there comes a point where it is in excess and is not benefiting the cause in a positive manor. That being said, I am no god, I am not 100% right 100% of the time, and this is just my opinion. At the same time, I know it is now almost impossible for me to follow this thread and get any meaningful information from it, as well, my email is filled with notifications that I have to sift through as I didn’t unsubscribe from the forum in time.
I would add that ABS as prototyping plastic is silly, many final objects are ABS, including the mouse I am using, I would think.
Also, it is wrong and confusing because the other cards have not changed. So prototyping as a result shows in several of the other cards. Its just bad wording. I agree, a test to see if no fewer FDM orders is what is being measured, they are in fact testing something that is just wrong. If the data shows FDM orders went up, it would no less wrong.
“I can’t seem to get over this” Don’t get over it. Stay vocal.
