How can the Mint improve customer satisfaction

WAYNEAS

Please leave your thoughts, likes and recommendations

Here is mine which I also had listed on another thread ( now modified)

IMHO:

1) The mint should list a starting minimum bid price say $70.00 on a new release

2) NOT list the actual production mintage but a statement that the release is "limited"

3) Keep the household limit to one

4) Allow only one bid that cannot be increased or decreased- you are locked into that bid which will be automatically
deducted from your credit card as in checking out on a regular product purchase ( confirmed order)
This will keep the deep pocket people from bidding exorbitant bids and hinder them from obtaining a large
amount of proxy bidders ( who wants to take a gamble and bid a $1000.00 on a coin that might be bought for 1/10th of that
bid) and this will increase the Mint's profit

5) Close all bidding 2 weeks before the actual release and then on the actual release date, list the actual mintage

6) If inventory is still available later, change the starting bid price to the average price that was bid

7) increase the allowed house hold limit ( which would allow "collectors" to buy additional coin(s))

8) destroy any unsold items at the end of 3 months of the re-listed price

This hopefully will allow actual collectors to purchase the coin at a reasonable price

Dealers and flippers can then do their thing on the open market afterwards

AND FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT ACHIEVE A SUCCESFUL BID
( WELL DON PARDO, THE PARTING GIFT)
a newly minted 2020 CC cent (but in order to claim , you must buy a mint product to cover shipping) LOL

MasonG

This is supposed to improve customer satisfaction? I'd be surprised if that was the result.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

edwardjulio

Contract out the customer service to a private customer relations firm.

WAYNEAS

@edwardjulio said:
Contract out the customer service to a private customer relations firm.

yes those failed in the bag orders were quite an emotion tester

Gluggo

It’s too late nothing they can do nor in my humble OPINION NORE WILL THEY!

WAYNEAS

@Gluggo said:
It’s too late nothing they can do nor in my humble OPINION NORE WILL THEY!

Yes, many collectors have sworn off of dealing with the mint in the past, present and the future
If they do not attempt to "change" the current modus operandi, they will lose a lot more of their customer base.
I have also limited my dealings with the mint as I now deal only with certified coins for my registry sets and only deal with the mint for yearly proof sets ( for family birth gifts so its not too often). I will only buy single graded coins for the kids.

WAYNEAS

ok the patriots win at home so now I can go back to coin things

cameonut2011

It could stop making contrived rarities when it knows or should know that its website is incapable of handling the traffic that the coins will generate.

MasonG

Regardless of how well the mint's website handles traffic, people will still be unhappy when they can't order an item with a limited mintage.

Cameonut

P on the mint.
If I were managing them, I would simply contract with an outside service to fill orders. Amazon, or anyone that is capable. This is not rocket science.

Clearly the goobermint doesn't have a clue about customer satisfaction. Time for them to move on. Fire the existing staff and outsource to someone that values customers and let the mint make product only.

WAYNEAS

@cameonut2011 said:
It could stop making contrived rarities when it knows or should know that its website is incapable of handling the traffic that the coins will generate.

I think that their motto is: buyer beware LOL

WAYNEAS

@MasonG said:
Regardless of how well the mint's website handles traffic, people will still be unhappy when they can't order an item with a limited mintage.

But if the "limited mintage" is unknown at the time of sale, would that not make more campers happy?

cameonut2011

@WAYNEAS said:
2) NOT list the actual production mintage but a statement that the release is "limited"

3) Keep the household limit to one

I think #2 is more viable. Option #3 doesn't really make a difference except that it makes the cost for flippers lower as they do not need to hire as many actors/shills (if any at all). Given the greed and chicanery we have seen with these sales, I doubt that savings would be passed on to others.

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:
Regardless of how well the mint's website handles traffic, people will still be unhappy when they can't order an item with a limited mintage.

We don't care about those people. We only care about ourselves.

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with the Mint.

WAYNEAS

@cameonut2011 said:
It could stop making contrived rarities when it knows or should know that its website is incapable of handling the traffic that the coins will generate.

I believe that the mint cares not on who purchased the coins but only that it was a "X" minute sellout. They ( the mint) needs to understand that aggravating the many for a few is going to hurt their future sales. This is why they need to change their current way of releasing coins. A one time bid allows for the spreading of the wealth ( distribution) and increases the mint's profit. Again this is my opinion.

MasonG

@WAYNEAS said:

@MasonG said:
Regardless of how well the mint's website handles traffic, people will still be unhappy when they can't order an item with a limited mintage.

But if the "limited mintage" is unknown at the time of sale, would that not make more campers happy?

If that's true, then unlimited (but unknown at the time of sale) mintages would make even more people happy, wouldn't it?

WAYNEAS

@MasonG said:

@WAYNEAS said:

@MasonG said:
Regardless of how well the mint's website handles traffic, people will still be unhappy when they can't order an item with a limited mintage.

But if the "limited mintage" is unknown at the time of sale, would that not make more campers happy?

If that's true, then unlimited (but unknown at the time of sale) mintages would make even more people happy, wouldn't it?

but the key word here is "LIMITED" releases not unlimited releases. People need to be able to add non certified limited coins to their sets at an uninflated price. Me I am looking for the TPG ones that are only available from the secondary market. I expect to pay more for these.

MasonG

@WAYNEAS said:
but the key word here is "LIMITED" releases not unlimited releases.

Then fewer people will get them and more people will be disappointed by missing out. How would that "make more campers happy"?

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:

@WAYNEAS said:

@MasonG said:
Regardless of how well the mint's website handles traffic, people will still be unhappy when they can't order an item with a limited mintage.

But if the "limited mintage" is unknown at the time of sale, would that not make more campers happy?

If that's true, then unlimited (but unknown at the time of sale) mintages would make even more people happy, wouldn't it?

Yes. Yes it would. And then people could go back to just not buying the Mint issues and they would not suffer from ANGER or ENVY or coin LUST.

cameonut2011

@Cameonut said:
P on the mint.
If I were managing them, I would simply contract with an outside service to fill orders. Amazon, or anyone that is capable. This is not rocket science.

Clearly the goobermint doesn't have a clue about customer satisfaction. Time for them to move on. Fire the existing staff and outsource to someone that values customers and let the mint make product only.

That's a great idea and given its relationship with other federal agencies (e.g. USPS), I'm surprised that this hasn't already been done. It would make much more sense.

MasonG

What I'm hearing here is that people want a Lake Woebegone sort of system, where mintages are limited, yet everybody gets one.

Or, at least, I get one and all the people who don't are okay with that.

jmlanzaf

@Cameonut said:
P on the mint.
If I were managing them, I would simply contract with an outside service to fill orders. Amazon, or anyone that is capable. This is not rocket science.

Clearly the goobermint doesn't have a clue about customer satisfaction. Time for them to move on. Fire the existing staff and outsource to someone that values customers and let the mint make product only.

With all due respect, I don't know that Amazon could have processed those orders. Do the math. They had 260,000 people all trying to check out in the same 1 minute, possibly less. Using 1 minute, that's equivalent to 15 million orders an hour or 350 million orders per day. Amazon's record is 100 million orders in a day.

WAYNEAS

@MasonG said:

@WAYNEAS said:
but the key word here is "LIMITED" releases not unlimited releases.

Then fewer people will get them and more people will be disappointed by missing out. How would that "make more campers happy"?

because when a limited coin is for sale and the mintage is not listed, more have a chance to obtain one. Ideally 30,000 coins will be won by 30,000 individuals who bid their price for the coin. We cannot make everybody happy no matter what the release amount was or is. When you submit a bid you will not have to deal with a coin in your cart issue and would have a substantial amount of time to confirm their offer no matter how slow the system excepts orders. The beginning post takes many different steps to achieve a better customer relationship.

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:
What I'm hearing here is that people want a Lake Woebegone sort of system, where mintages are limited, yet everybody gets one.

Or, at least, I get one and all the people who don't are okay with that.

Don't forget that they have to maintain their value...even though EVERY ONE already has one.

MasonG

@WAYNEAS said:
The beginning post takes many different steps to achieve a better customer relationship.

You have more faith in the ability and interest of potential buyers to go to the trouble of reading and understanding the process than I do.

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@Cameonut said:
P on the mint.
If I were managing them, I would simply contract with an outside service to fill orders. Amazon, or anyone that is capable. This is not rocket science.

Clearly the goobermint doesn't have a clue about customer satisfaction. Time for them to move on. Fire the existing staff and outsource to someone that values customers and let the mint make product only.

With all due respect, I don't know that Amazon could have processed those orders. Do the math. They had 260,000 people all trying to check out in the same 1 minute, possibly less. Using 1 minute, that's equivalent to 15 million orders an hour or 350 million orders per day. Amazon's record is 100 million orders in a day.

The servers would have been able to handle the bandwidth better than whatever antiquated system the U.S. Mint was using. The whole thing was a joke. I almost gave up but am glad that I kept trying until I made my way through all of the hurdles.

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:

@WAYNEAS said:
The beginning post takes many different steps to achieve a better customer relationship.

You have more faith in the ability and interest of potential buyers to go to the trouble of reading and understanding the process than I do.

I fail to see how hiding information from potential buyers will make anyone happy. What you will have is people "taking a shot" and then mad when the mintage turns out to be too high. So, instead of people mad because they DIDN'T SPEND MONEY, you are going to have people mad who DID SPEND possibly hundreds of dollars. Your "solution" would poison the relationship with customers, not improve it.

What do you tell the guy who buys 10 consecutive commems hoping for a winner who then gets outbid on the 11th which is the winner? You've tricked a customer into buying a bunch of stuff trying to win a ridiculous lottery that you created.

Silverman2020

What I want is the truth just say you got bot scripted saying otherwise saying you didn't just makes me question the whole website. If my cc info is safe at all

WAYNEAS

I guess that I err on the side of the collector who only wants to fill that hole in his set and not the dealer who is trying to make a profit. Dealers must make a profit in order to stay in business which I have no problem with. Without dealers , I would never have the ability to finish the completion or upgrade of my registry sets. My sets will not be sold but passed down so there is no profit for me. I have never sold a coin but only have given them away. My ASE set will never be complete as I am with the many set owners who lack the 95-w coin. I will spend the $3K cost on up dating my Kennedys sets.

jmlanzaf

@WAYNEAS said:
I guess that I err on the side of the collector who only wants to fill that hole in his set and not the dealer who is trying to make a profit. Dealers must make a profit in order to stay in business which I have no problem with. Without dealers , I would never have the ability to finish the completion or upgrade of my registry sets. My sets will not be sold but passed down so there is no profit for me. I have never sold a coin but only have given them away. My ASE set will never be complete as I am with the many set owners who lack the 95-w coin. I will spend the $3K cost on up dating my Kennedys sets.

Your system doesn't benefit the collector who will see his collection drop in value. And why such a convoluted system. If you want to "err on the side of the collector" rather than just err all over the place, just make all mintages unlimited.

MasonG

@WAYNEAS said:
I guess that I err on the side of the collector who only wants to fill that hole in his set and not the dealer who is trying to make a profit.

Okay. Assume you can strike 30,000 eagles for collectors only, eliminating all dealer sales. What about the collectors that still can't get a coin to fill that hole in his set? At least, with dealers getting some coins, he can go there for one but if they all go to collectors, there won't be any to be had. Now what?

WAYNEAS

so collectors only collect coins so their sets will have monetary value that they will redeem at sale somewhere in the future and not any value for putting together a nice completed set? Not true collectors to me but I am here not to judge.

WAYNEAS

@MasonG said:

@WAYNEAS said:
I guess that I err on the side of the collector who only wants to fill that hole in his set and not the dealer who is trying to make a profit.

Okay. Assume you can strike 30,000 eagles for collectors only, eliminating all dealer sales. What about the collectors that still can't get a coin to fill that hole in his set? At least, with dealers getting some coins, he can go there for one but if they all go to collectors, there won't be any to be had. Now what?

Nowhere does it say that a dealer cannot put in a bid and get a coin that he can resell. My thoughts would help limit the flippers who are being paid to buy the coin and have no interest in the coin. Hopefully it would also keep the secondary market price down.

ricko

Will this never end??....I guess it will, in a few weeks.... Hopefully this type of event is only once a year....Now back to your regularly scheduled program of all the rest of the coins... Cheers, RickO

WCC

What is the primary source of dissatisfaction with the Mint's current practices?

To my knowledge, it is primarily the consistently lower secondary market price with the increasing amount of product in the last 30+ years making it worse.

So the Mint releases a "low mintage" coin which I believe most who bought it don't really intend to keep but flip for a profit. I infer there is at least as much dissastisfaction in missing out on a windfall versus not having the coin.

I don't believe the OP approach would resolve the above two conflicting outcomes. Using an auction, the price even on these "limited mintage" issues would almost certainly still decline noticeably over time if sold for noticeably higher than current issue price.