Do you eat your own dogfood?
Posted 28 March 2007 at 10:24AM by Simon Dickson in Hints and tips
There's a bit of a fuss in the news about the Royal Bank of Scotland telling its UK staff they must have their primary bank account with the firm, or face disciplinary action.
The Amicus union described the move as 'disproportionate, heavy-handed, counter-productive and bad for morale'. The union's Rob Macgregor said its helpline had been 'jammed with calls from angry staff', and warned that Amicus was 'prepared to fight'.
In the IT industry - particularly at Microsoft, where I used to work - this principle is known by the unpleasantly graphic term of 'eating your own dogfood'. And it's a tricky area.
Leaving aside the likelihood of staff discounts, there are perfectly logical reasons for adopting a policy like this. On the negative side, it's a PR disaster waiting to happen: if word gets out that you don't trust your own products, why on earth should someone else trust them? Or, thinking positively, it's only by using something day in, day out - like an ordinary client or consumer - that you can understand its strengths and weaknesses.
Friday's statement from Amicus said: 'if you work for Tesco's, you won't be disciplined for buying your groceries from Sainsburys.' Fair enough - but I did once see a woman in her Waitrose uniform doing her shopping in our local Co-op. Granted, it would be a bit much to sack her for this, but it certainly didn't reflect well on Waitrose. Were they charging too much, or not paying her enough - or both?
Then again, it's always sensible to keep an eye on what the competition is doing. Maybe that rival product is simply better, or cheaper, or better supported than yours. And if your staff aren't buying into their own output - literally or figuratively, maybe instead of threatening to fire them, you need to be asking them why not.
What do you think? Does your company have a policy on this sort of thing? I'd love to hear your experiences in the comments below.
Tags: amicus, dogfood, Microsoft, rbs
New feature: Rate this post!
Average rating: 4.3/5
Comments
2. At March 29, 2007 4:03 PM, JasonP wrote:
Encouragement to employees to use your products or benefits to enhance your Co credibility is acceptable and often positive if the benefits are sound; however, forcing employees to use your products is counter productive to good business and employee management. This approach risks damaging morale and dent employee/employer trust, but could also suggest a big brother approach to accessing employee's financial status or credibility otherwise not available to the everyday employer without informed consent. Forcing a product means that employees cannot provide informed consent to credit checks that are required to access a host of products. Will we see RBS issue a formal warning to employees who go over their authorised overdraft limit? Voluntary incentives, is by far more positive than the whip. I foresee a PR disaster in the making for RBS.
3. At March 30, 2007 5:00 PM, Ele wrote:
There needs to be some sense here - the staff will be given preferential treatment in having accounts with their company - at least that used to be the way.. Banks and insurance companies slowly removed these perks - now there is no benefit to staff having an account with the bank that employs them. If the banks want them to open more accounts with them then the perks need to be added back, after all these are a part of the overall "salary package". Just like pensions used to be part of the "salary package" until a little old lady had her way,
4. At March 31, 2007 6:03 PM, Salim Lohiya wrote:
I worked for Lloyds Bank in the early eighties, and we had no choice other then to use the banks staff branch, which was then moved to Swansea (we were in London), which was very handy !
5. At April 2, 2007 1:53 PM, Tony wrote:
This sort of company behaviour is appalling. Are staff accounts guaranteed privacy from prying management? Is this a cost reduction exercise? What is to stop my employer forcing me to use a particular bank because they have done a commercial deal? So if I gain employment at RBS I cannot use another bank's account that I have had for 20 years? - and meets my needs!
This is bullying behaviour by an institution that should know better - similar behaviour in the 1800's when mill employees had to shop in their mill's shop were outlawed - that should happen here.
6. At April 2, 2007 10:03 PM, Scott wrote:
Controlling what is used during work time is OK. So if I worked for a software company I'd expect to have to use their software when working for them. However, in my own time I should be free to use whatever software I like.
In the RBS case this is complicated as the bank account is both the personal account of the employee and where their salary is paid.
Post a comment
As 14 days have passed, comments are now closed for this entry.
1. At March 29, 2007 10:09 AM, Gill Mackie wrote: