Choices that impact only us are easy to make. Only my waistline is affected by my eating decisions.
Expand the circle to friends and family and decisions become more difficult. The larger the group, the more varied the opinions.
And what happens when the group balloons to thousands, like our customer base? Suddenly the sphere of affected people has grown exponentially, and the range of opinions expands beyond the borders encapsulated in rules and company mission statements.
If I owned a restaurant I would not serve meat or fish. I am a vegetarian. I could serve meat and fish and justify that action: “It is not me that is eating the meat or fish”. But, would that not be hypocritical to my values?
What’s more important? The values of the restaurant owner or the customers who eat there? Is there room for compromise, and if so, where does one draw the line?
PS Audio supports MP3, yet I do not listen to it, nor do I like it or support it. There was a time when MP3 made sense, but with today’s plentiful memory and bandwidth, its time has passed. Yet, we continue its support because some of our customers depend upon it.
This isn’t a rant against MP3 or meat. It is an observation that it’s difficult for companies to draw lines. We can’t be everything to everyone.
Where should companies draw the line between what’s expected and what’s delivered?