B. 3dhubs posts on TALK a request for help in defining guidelines for “customer expectations” for FDM. They ignore hubs that say that is a bad idea. This was actually step 1 in their SECRET plan to denigrate FDM.
C. 3dhubs adds a dialogue when customers put up a model, with a dialogue that says “can we help you choose a material?” which pushes customers to SLS or SLA. Including our customers, our repeat customers, and customers that come from our own websites.
D. 3dhubs adds a “Disclaimer” for those who choose FDM, stating that the prints are not smooth, within tolerances, etc. They are then guided to SLS or SLA. Again, this includes our customers, our repeat customers, and customers that come from our own website.
E. 3dhubs changes the description of FDM to “Protoyping”. All the descriptions for other methods are given better wording, FDM is given negative wording.
F. 3dhubs changes the materials descriptions the customer chooses from “General Purpose Plastics” to Prototyping Plastics.
G. 3dhubs adds a dialogue that appears just before the customer completes the order with a “Disclaimer” that warns the customer that FDM is not the best way to go, and includes links that lets the customer choose SLS or SLA. This outright steals the customer from the FDM hub, and moves the customer to an SLS or SLA hub. This is true for our customers, our repeat customers, customers that we brought to 3dhubs on our own, and customers that arrive via our own websites or Facebook pages.
H. This was done in secret, with no input from the FDM hubs, no warning, and no notice on the changelog. 3dhubs says this is just a test, but we believe it is already a permanent change.
I. After 6 days of input, on day 6 3dhubs fails to respond to any messages, including those who have stated that their orders have declined. Active hubs have shown a direct loss of orders, but 3dhubs ignored the them.
Totally agree with this post. 3DHUBS is now branding FDM as non desirable. Not sure what kinds of profits they’ll see from this, but i guess they’re out to rid themselves of the “little guys.” And orders are now nill since this happened.
ANOTHER HUB who has lost business as a result of being called a “Protoype Hub with low tolerances and prototype quality materials?” shocking! That’s about 8 or something for the number of hubs who have checked in with lower orders. And since TALK is read by a very few of us, it would seem that we are hearing from very few of the entire represented data here. Many hubs are probably losing customers without being aware of it.
-------------------------
Why would your orders go down? Well, lets look at your hub, which I will rank on a scale of 1-5.
Quality of prints: 10. Your photos of your prints are excellent. In fact, some of your prints are better than I have seen from some HQ hubs.
Tolerances 10. Can measure that, but your stepper motor holder sure looks like it fits PERFECTLY.
Hub Quality 10. Great presentation, description, etc.
Reviews 10. Appears to be a perfect score. Reviews like “Very knowledgeable with CAD, 3D printing techniques/strategy. Provided recommendations to improve quality, even fixed a problem with STL file” “If I could give 6 stars …” Great communication and customer service " “Pierre made special adjustments to his equipment in order to print my parts with the best quality.”
I also see you print 2 ft x 3ft with your FDM printer. AND you deliver, do cad design.
------------- I can see no reason why your orders would have dropped of -------------------
Or perhaps the customers came to your site and found that you do prototyping materials, and went to a different hub.
Or perhaps the customers came to you and was shown a “can i help you choose a material” which aims your customer at a different hub, and thus went to a different hub.
Or perhaps it was the “Disclaimer” that warns the customer that FDM is not a good print quality.
Or perhaps the customers got the point of placing the order, and was told they should “consider a different material” which directs them to SLA and SLA and went to a different hub.
Or perhaps the customer saw that 3dhubs does low quality prototypes in prototyping material, and went completely to a different 3d printing site all together.
Or perhaps the customer saw that 3dhubs does low quality prototypes, and went to an FDM printer farm.
I see that 3dhubs on FRIDAY was so interested in this issue that they failed to respond in any meaningful way to our issues here. As I said from the first day, this is now policy. They are ignoring us. This does not bode well for the future of 3dhubs as a reliable company with which to list our printers.
------------
Here is what happened. In lieu of responses from 3dhubs, I will speak for them. I will speak for them every day that they do not participate.
A. Last year, 3dhubs received $7 million US in series B funding. This was presented as an investment that would allow funding for 3dhubs to pay for a greater focus on professional type printers. https://www.startupdelta.org/news/3D-Hubs-secures-7M-series-B-round-to-f…
B. 3dhubs posts on TALK a request for help in defining guidelines for “customer expectations” for FDM. They ignore hubs that say that is a bad idea. This was actually step 1 in their SECRET plan to denigrate FDM.
C. 3dhubs adds a dialogue when customers put up a model, with a dialogue that says “can we help you choose a material?” which pushes customers to SLS or SLA. Including our customers, our repeat customers, and customers that come from our own websites.
D. 3dhubs adds a “Disclaimer” for those who choose FDM, stating that the prints are not smooth, within tolerances, etc. They are then guided to SLS or SLA. Again, this includes our customers, our repeat customers, and customers that come from our own website.
E. 3dhubs changes the description of FDM to “Protoyping”. All the descriptions for other methods are given better wording, FDM is given negative wording.
F. 3dhubs changes the materials descriptions the customer chooses from “General Purpose Plastics” to Prototyping Plastics.
G. 3dhubs adds a dialogue that appears just before the customer completes the order with a “Disclaimer” that warns the customer that FDM is not the best way to go, and includes links that lets the customer choose SLS or SLA. This outright steals the customer from the FDM hub, and moves the customer to an SLS or SLA hub. This is true for our customers, our repeat customers, customers that we brought to 3dhubs on our own, and customers that arrive via our own websites or Facebook pages.
H. This was done in secret, with no input from the FDM hubs, no warning, and no notice on the changelog. 3dhubs says this is just a test, but we believe it is already a permanent change.
I. After 7 days of input, on day 6 AND ON DAY 7 3dhubs fails to respond to any messages, including those who have stated that their orders have declined. Active hubs have shown a direct loss of orders, but 3dhubs ignored the them.
Be very clear here. AFTER a customer, including YOUR CUSTOMERS, choose your hub, 3dhubs tries to move them to a different hub!
Day 7. No response on day 6 or day 7.
Well that was the quietest 3D Hubs weekend ever!!! Just one enquiry from an existing customer and 3 printers getting cold.
I used to look forward to the weekend orders but looks like someone else is getting them now. This has to be the “prototyping” thing and negativity in the description. 3D Hubs have really screwed us FDM hubs.
@Filemon Could you also let me know why when a customer is searching for hubs from Leicester they get hubs from other parts of the UK and even one from Belgium?
Position 4 is a hub from London which is 140km away
Position 9 is a hub from BELGIUM which is another country 370km away!!!
Also I just noticed my listing says I respond in 13m on average but my dashboard says that both my accept/decline time and order comment times are 2m. Is it me or is this full of errors?
I’m starting to lose confidence that 3D Hubs will be great again.
This is ridiculous on so many levels. Not sure how 3dhubs could have screwed this up worse.
I find it hard to believe that so many of those customers went on to print at SLA or SLP printers. I think it is likely they were simply scared off 3dhubs by the new wording, and either decided not to part with their money for what was perceived as low quality, or that they looked around and found some non-3dhub site with a better description of FDM to place the orders.
@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.
“a competing website full of FDM printers”
Yes, this is what I fear most, a split in the marketplace as a result of "opening the door to competition."
This is classic “voice of the customer” training for anyone in marketing. Keep your base happy. Show EXTREME loyalty. Do not show any disloyalty. That’s how competitors get a foothold.
Particularly with 3dhubs business model, which is to match a growing “COMMODITY”(vendors) with a growing customer base (end users). 3dhubs will likely not want a full press split in the market, and I absolutely don’t want that either.
How they did not work to protect existing hubs and customers on this was just amazing. That would have been step one. Marketing 101. Whatever you do, improve your base first.
Yes, well, we know which hubs these changes are meant to benefit, don’t we? Its such an amateurish mistake companies make during growth phases, when they hit the death valley of the cost of customers vrs. the revenues of each customer.
This is like makerbot, back when they owned the market, saying they were focusing their market on more educational and industrial markets, because there was untapped money there. They then tried to show how bad their old printers were, in all their marketing, and tried to show how well their new printers were better. They also cut off all their support for their old printers, in the hopes the customers would move to better printers. They even deleted their old forum postings.
They tried to redefine the market.
They are now 1/3 of the company they were (at least as a division), and Flashforge stepped right in and stole their market, with A COPY of Makerbot’s old printer. I can give 20 other examples just off the top of my head, where companies who owned the market began to belittle (or complicate the messaging of) the actual market they were in charge of, to upsell their customers, and lost a TON of money, created competitors, or simply vanished. Makerbot was supposed to be the next Apple…
This is so scary to me. The lack of loyalty. I do not really want to see a 3dhubs competitor chip away at their market. But as my wife said- if she went to a competitor, (such as the printer farms that are popping up here in the states) and they described FDM as quick, inexpensive, and HIGH QUALITY, she would order from them over 3dhubs that defines the prints as low quality prototypes printed with prototyping materials.
It is all so sad to watch. This is just step 1 of “How to walk off a cliff.”
For me personally it is just disappointment. I’ve enjoyed telling people I am part of 3D Hubs and explaining how it works. Now I just feel FDM was a stepping stone for them and not looking after the people why got them there.
FDM is not a stepping stone for them, if they just fix some things in the correct way. The materials, qualities, etc., can all live together well. But they have just not been smart about how to go about it. They should listen to us.
I’m happy to schedule a separate call later this week. That would allow to dive in on your own Hub as well, as I’ve noticed that some comments are more directed towards that. I’ll just go ahead and schedule something. Lmk if that works for you.
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.
