Thursday, 25 September 2008

Industry approvals and rebuttals

Post number 8:
Thank you for your e-mail queries. We still have a backlog to catch up on. Here is one from 2 August. An earlier post commencing with paragraph 1 below, produced the rebuttal in paragraphs 2 to 4, also below,:

1. “CCCC predecessors cleaned dry cleaning – literally. The industry has a standard(though don’t recognise it as a vital standard and quality parameter) for the degree of cleaning: The retention of 20 microns (20,000 nano metre) of soiling left in textiles. No matter what solvent and technology is used, the soil removal efficiency remains the same. …”.

2. “No Mohammad, you are writing what you need to believe to promote your CCCC. We don’t see it as reality. You are using the Which? magazine as a vehicle of direct communication with the public in the condemnation of the industry and the promotion of what you feel would be the ideal world. You have not produced any real scientific proof that your filtering techniques is an improvement in cleaning clothes over current practises, or that segregation is not already practised as a best policy working practice. You have some very good principles of operations and deserve to realise the benefits of practising them, but do not consider for one moment that these practises are unique and do not already exist. There does exist, others that equally care enough.
3. The general standard of cleaning carried out by the majority has been quite acceptable to the testing houses for the past 50 years. Those independents that survive in the darker deep corners of the underworld of the industry will always attract some people as customers and will also make some kind of living.
4. The FCRA earlier and now SATRA are government approved testing houses to both the textile manufacturing and textile aftercare industries. They both in turn have worked together and ironed out differences with textile manufacturing and service industries for years. So we cannot be enthused by the possibility of any new approach of cooperation or consideration with one or two fashion designers who have never given a damn about customer problems in servicing the garment other than to off load the problem to be some one else’s responsibility. It requires dry cleaners like you Mohammad to meet that challenge and benefit from it. We do not see any advantage in your analysis of looking in from outside the box. The industry in some sectors and TSA simply needed a shake up and that is what is going to happen. Currently we get the impression there is an attempt to stage-manage the situation by your blog in the interest of promoting CCCC and that will add fuel to the real crime.”

We are grateful for the mixed reactions of rebuttals and approvals of what our hands - on experiences over a period of more than a decade and 6 prototypes revealed to the year 2000. Comments, approvals and rebuttals above are indeed the best form of dialogue we were looking for the past 20 years, and we are pleased to have them at last.

With the publishing of our business plan on this blog on hold, pending editing by accountants and health professionals, we will concentrate on queries above over the next few posts. The result will be the revelation of a rift that CCCC tried and tested practises will reveal in the industry as a whole. A new dry cleaning industry will be born as a result of re engineering dry cleaning with the help of investors, parainvestors, technology and dry cleaning partners, and partners from the fields of fashion, textiles, garment industries, and producers of natural fibres.

For now, we are pleased to announce that despite credit crunch and the literal collapse of investment banking, our main investor Discovery Beach remain firmly by our side. We wish them all the best in these trying times and promise them that we will produce a business plan worthy of their investment and that of other parainvestors that they have on their data bases for the past 14 years while they have been building Discovery Beach. Readers may have realised that DB’s web site is parked by Dreamhost for very good reasons known to DB.

Post number 9 will provide a point by point reply to the industry’s comments above, before other proceeding ones will develop the differences in operational methods that did turn industry practices on their heads. Investors will note that we will be giving away a limited number of hints to develop new intellectual property (IP) in order to sell most of the ones we retain for ourselves.

The industry have been candid (at least to us) in giving us their seriously considered views as cited in 2 to 4 above. We reciprocate this good well by giving clues to IP away so that the industry may take leads and develop their own technologies.

This blog forms a live appendix to our business plan which is evolving as we receive your views and feed backs.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home