"What would be better is just putting that in the material blurb; something like "Higher accuracy can be achieved " Again, this, and other better wording would be nice. We have suggested better wording on these issues before. 3dhubs is not going to listen to us. When you say it would be better, you mean for the hubs and for the customers. But not better for 3dhubs the company. They want to push FDM slowly downward, to increase the margin on the prints.
Skip to main content
Hi all!
@cobnut thanks for raising your concern, allow me to quickly explain.
From our customer research we’ve learned that the biggest issue they face when using 3D Hubs is low print quality. Specifically for FDM prints. We’ve found that this is mostly caused by unrealistic customer expectations concerning FDM. Especially professionals who are used to injection molded parts which are then compared against FDM. Some very high potential customers state this is the key reason they don’t use 3D Hubs more often.
As such, the goal for 3D Hubs should be two-fold:
- increase FDM quality standards to a higher but realistic level (hence the guidelines)
- setting more realistic customer expectations
We started with the latter by adding an excerpt to the checkout a few weeks ago, that highlights FDM limitations. What we’ve found is that, if exposed to these limitations, no fewer FDM orders are made, but print quality ratings do increase. In short, it appears that the excerpts succeeds in setting customer expectations better.
The new cards in the checkout (only shown to a small group of customers btw) aim to do the same. The data so far seems to indicate it’s working, no fewer FDM orders, but increasing print quality ratings (not yet significant though).
So, even though I understand it looks like we’re sending people away from FDM, the data shows differently. Customers choosing FDM are currently happier customers, meaning they will come back more often which benefits all Hubs.
Our long-term vision is, and has always been, to build a distributed platform that can deliver reproducible quality parts. See our original manifesto. At this point, 3D print technologies still have their limitations which we should communicate clearly. My personal belief, is that over time the technology will evolve into a fully reproducible technology and this will no longer be necessary.
Hope this explains our reasoning. Happy to answer any further questions.
Hi @Filemon thanks for the response. I do appreciate that customer expectations are an issue; that is clear from the quality guidelines as discussed. However, I feel that the precise wording used in the new cards is overly critical of FDM potential quality and likely to dissuade potential FDM users. Imagine you’re completely new to 3D printing and you want a final use part, maybe a Go Pro mount, for example. Would you choose the option that’s “low accuracy”, with a “rough surface finish”? Would you even consider that option if the entire card is labelled for “prototyping”? I wouldn’t. If the data suggests there’s no reduction in FDM orders, then we’ll all be happy, but it would be surprising.
Perhaps some consideration could be given to alternative wording that still manages customer expectations, but which isn’t so much of a potential deterrent to customers for whom FDM would be a good solution.
That’s fair enough indeed. When the first significant data comes in, we’ll work on some copy changes as well. Will keep you posted on that
Since the largest distributed manufacturing website in the world decided to label FDM printing as low quality prototyping, it affects my whole business, not just my business on 3dhubs. Thus, I have some questions.
1. Why did you folks not get input from us on wording?
2. Are you going to just implement this regardless of our discussion here?
3. Now that you know we feel bad about it, are you just going to leave it up or are you going to take it down?
4. Is there anything we can say to get you to change the wording off prototyping?
5. Why did you choose the word prototype, (meaning a test, a sample, an experiment, not final “proto=first type=item”)?
I am not really interested in a bunch of feel good answers. “Happier customers mean more business” is hardly a data metric. I am looking for specific answers to specific questions.
To me this translates as:
“This is the policy now, we will look at the data, and if it fits our internal goals, we will be happy with it. We are not listening”
How about working on some copy changes NOW, as a result of OUR INPUT. You have to be loyal not only to your own data, your own internal goals, but to THE HUBS!
Yes, we want this!!!
If more Hubs want to get these changes, please communicate this with 3D Hubs staff.
Not just through the forums, but contact support and get in touch with actual staff.
I am sure once there is enough demand, and 3D Hubs realizes that Hub owners are not happy with the wording, they will make an adjustment.
But I also see Filemon’s point, the wording is not going to change the demand for the FDM parts on a global/macro level.
At the end of the day, most users are very price dependent, so they will naturally go for FDM. Then once you have them you can educate the customers on the extensive applications and possibilities of FDM printing.
“no less valid than 3D Hubs interpretation” Consider that your input is probably more valid, as you are a customer facing business that deals directly with the customer, and would therefore have a better idea of what happens between a hub and a customer.
As a hub that has over 300 prints, and great reviews, I want to hear your real opinion!
1. What is the ratio between your prints that are end user items vrs. protoypes?
2. Have you gotten poor reviews, and if so, what have you done about it?
3. Now that 3dhubs has lowered expectations, resulting in higher reviews for hubs that do worse prints, do you feel at all slighted?
4. Do you print outside of 3dhubs, and if you do, do you think this will affect your business generally, now that what you do has been labeled as low quality prototyping,?
5. Do you work with your customers on resolving issues, generating expectations, determining materials, etc.? (this question is unfair, as I already know the answer from reading your reviews)
6. As 3dhubs continues to push expectations for FDM printing to the lowest common denominator, what do you feel your edge will be over hubs that do not do what you do.
7. What is the most significant factor in determining whether a customer chooses your hub?
"I am sure once there is enough demand, and 3D Hubs realizes that Hub owners are not happy with the wording, they will make an adjustment. " Historical precedence indicates otherwise.
With honest respect to your suggestion, I would say 3dhubs is more likely to change as a result of many, many hubs voicing their issues here, in the open. Or do both public and private. I try to be more positive in public, because I have had a lot of respect for 3dhubs and what they have accomplished so far. I tend to be more negative in my direct email to customer support.
My responses today are not nearly as strong as I would like them to be, but I HATE people who are mean on open forums. You can read my responses in the past on these forums to folks that fire a one-off hate posting about some printer, vendor or 3dhubs.
I have been more negative today as this affects my reputation both on the hub, and off. 3dhubs has relabeled what I do for a business.