I got an email forwarded to me last week from a funeral director who used to have a Batesville showroom. The email was announcing the “Batesville Insight Council”, which is described in the email as an “exclusive online community for funeral professionals interested in industry trends, issues, new products and services, and consumer trends – both current and emerging – and who are willing to share their opinions on these topics. “
The email goes on to say:
As a member of the Batesville Insights Council, you’ll have the opportunity to:
- Share your insights on a variety of topics by participating in online research surveys
- Provide feedback on proposed concepts and products
- Give us your perspective on industry trends
- Learn what your peers think by participating in online discussions
- Receive summary reports on topics discussed or researched
In addition, you’ll automatically be eligible for quarterly sweepstakes prizes just for sharing your ideas. On behalf of the entire Batesville organization, we hope you’ll join other customers and industry leaders in this exciting group. To become a member of the Batesville Insights Council, click on the link below and complete the qualifying questionnaire.
Being curious I clicked on the “Join Link”. I answered the questions that were asked on the landing page, after the fourth question I saw the following message:
I tried to get access multiple times choosing different answers for the four questions asked but the results were always the same.
I don’t think there is anything wrong for what Batesville is putting together, but I question the integrity of the screening process. It seems like they are looking for only “certain profile” members.
If the screening process is to weed out only the profile funeral director Batesville is looking for then how true will the results actually be? Or will the results only show what the big “B” wants the results to be?
Here is a screenshot of the email that was sent out by Batesville:
What do you think Batesville is trying to achieve with the “Insight Council”? We would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Also if you do get registered, please share as well.
I agree with the funeral director who started this topic. Batesville doesn’t want to hear what probably needs to be said … they products are often priced too high for those of us who have to operate in very competitive markets, where even $100 difference will mean you either get or lose the call.
On the surface, it looks like Big B is trying to assemble a focus group of funeral service people. Not a thing wrong with that; actually a good idea. The “screening” process is concerning, however.
That being said, it has been my experience in 40 years of funeral service that BigB does absolutely nothing that, in the end, serves anyone other than BigB.
Unfortunately, both guys, Jaydee and Jack are right. I guess that the criteria needed to be part of that B inner circle group is measured per units bought during the year. Ha! Sorry to say, but I think Batesville’s time is up. Nothing would be the same again for them or for the Funeral Service in general. We’ll have to re-invent again, go back to the original roots of our profession and deal with the new trend. This is not rocket science. This is a call and we are the chosen one. At the end, no matter if the casket is made in USA, China or Russia. Nobody cares about that anymore as long as the quality is not sacrificed. Perhaps B is the “best”, but the word “best” depends on the subject and his/her perception of quality. There some regions that buying B caskets is not practical anymore. As simple as that…at the end, their economical alternatives are made in Mexico, some of their hardware are imported from China and I’m sure that one of these days they will end manufacturing some options in Asia. You can count on that…
I actually like Batesville and went through the screening process. The idea of an Insight Council really excited me. However, when I got to the end there was a User Agreement to agree to. There were a couple of things in it I just didn’t agree with:
“6. This website and all of the material that it contains is owned by Batesville or its third party licensors and is protected by intellectual property and other laws throughout the world. Except as permitted by this Agreement, nothing found on the website may be copied, reproduced, republished, distributed, sold, licensed, transferred or modified without the express written permission of Batesville. You agree that you will not take any actions inconsistent with Batesville’s ownership of the site and its content.”
“10. You hereby expressly grant to Batesville a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable right and license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, edit, translate, perform, transmit, sell, exploit, sublicense or otherwise distribute and display the content for any reason and in any manner it chooses, including for promotional and advertising purposes, alone or as a part of other works, in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed, and you waive all moral rights in all such content.”
So if I understand this correctly, I can’t use anything on the site without their permissions, but they can use anything that I say and I give up all future rights to the content/ideas. I’m sure it is a “standard” agreement, but if I’m on an insight council I am going to want to use the ideas. That’s pretty much the point.
Those clauses are pretty much standard for any “social” website where users can post content. I’d be very surprised not to find something very similar right here on Connecting Directors.
Actually Paul the only content ConnectingDirectors.com has the rights to is the content that we produce organically. The content that is created by our guest writers that is exclusive to ConnectingDirector.com is still owner by the writer , we just have first rights to publish.
All comments and ideas shared on the site and in the comments is owned by the contributor and will not be used for any promotional content or article content without permission from the contributor.
Just because someone posts a comment or shares the idea on our site doesn’t give us the right to claim we own the content the user shared.
I’m curious – what exactly are the screening questions that have caused the concern? Is there something inappropriate for them to be considering?