Friday, 8 August 2008

Feedback to post number 1

Post number 2

Some of you have decided to remain anonymous and have sent in constructive remarks and harsh criticisms of our claims in post number 1, via e-mails. We respect the anonymity, but will share your comments with blog readers in the hope of encouraging response from the rest of you.

One individual advises that proceedings are lengthy and readers will loose interest in following up the debate. We thought about this, but decided to part with as much knowledge as possible, owing to the scarcity of published material on dry cleaning that is consumer friendly over the past 50 years. Just a glance at Wikipedia and sites such as www.howstuffworks.com reveal that information given don't go beyond a history of dry cleaning, and various solvents and machinery in use.

The sources don't cover the current sorry state of dry cleaning - a failed service sector business that is doomed to extinction if current trends continue. Still, we apologise to those of you whom we bored to tears, but hope that the information given provided ample grounds for debate among yourselves for a better dry cleaning of tomorrow. Share your views with us and ask quetions.

The second welcome response, also via e-mail is from a source close to the industry. First, they do not consider our reply to Which? necessary at all, and advises us to leave matters to TSA to deal with. They even hint that because we are not a member of TSA, then we are not qualified to comment.

Our response is that we clearly dissociated ourselves away from the industry as a whole, and the TSA and the Guild of Cleaners & Launderers in particular. We are all known to each other. Our files are full of one way correspondence with both, Laundry & Cleaning News, Laundry & Dry Cleaning Today (Mr Jack Fowler), SATRA, Messrs Murray Simpson, Chris Tebbs and others going back to 1994.

We have expressed similar views to Which? with the industry who have decided to remain silent for reasons known to themselves. One aspect to which we drew attention to was the non existence of quality criteria dictated by consumers against which dry cleaning should be checked for the purposes of fitness for purpose. We give details of our own quality list below that are continually being updated based on the ever changing wishes and demands of the consumers:

Dry cleaning quality parameters drawn from consumer surveys at shop service counters

• Customers want their clothes cleaned to 4 nano metres cleansing standard (tap water quality rinse)
• Original colours should be maintained, with colour run items as exceptions
• Clothes should maintain original feel and touch
• Clothes should not smell
• Clothes should be free of all stains except for ink, paint, blood on non wool items, etc.
• Service should offer convenience
• Service should fully comply with cleaning & care labels, except fakes and cheap copies
• Service should produce reliably predictable results each time; similar to laundry results
• All shops should produce the exact same results exhibiting quality parameters (bullet points) above.
The above parameters define quality from the customers’ view point for the first time in dry cleaning history. The absence of knowing customer expectations and meeting them has been a route cause of dry cleaning as a failed business sector.

These standards were tested and sold to consumers for more than a decade up to the year 2000, and produced literally no customer complaints. They also met with approval of major fashion designers and Saville Row.

Copyright of CleanestClean Clothes Care (CCCC) Limited
40 Roundway, Egham TW20 8BX, Surrey, England
United Kingdom, 3 September 2007

We would hope that between now and 11 September we will have built a useful platform on dry cleaning when all interested parties with gather at Which? offices (we presume) to exchange views on dry cleaning and seek solutions to Which?'s investigations.

Mohammad

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home