|
|
Post by keenasmustard on Jun 10, 2006 10:20:28 GMT 1
just received my lastest update from sillarys it seems that they have been working on a website of their own  what a start, they have got the roll out wrong phase 1 aug 2006 phase 2dec 2006 phase 3 expected spring 2006 (bit late just like the info on claw backs ,commission etc) I like the last one on phase 1 advisor discussion forum? why would we want one of theirs when we have one of our own? for a start they would have full control over everything that was put, in other words spin spin and even more spin. what I am suggesting just to show solidarity and the feeling of our forum,that we,to start with,have a poll yes or no to this new forum.todays count of members shows we have reached almost 500 so stand up and be counted for once and lets show them just what we think of their new forum. I hope everyone ticks no to this one also why do we have to give a reason when indicating no to any question? personally i can't see the point of being a member of another forum about hillarys its not exactly a riveting subject its only work related. the rest maybe OK its just a matter of time to see how it pans out and to whether sillarys can balls this up and turn even more of us off what was a good company and job. |
|
|
|
Post by greenpesto on Jun 10, 2006 10:53:16 GMT 1
I was glad to receive this memo this morning as I was one of those suggesting this in the first place!
The Advisor forum on their web-site is very welcome & as I have posted before, this may well replace this site. ( No reflection of the fantastic job done by all involved here! )
Though I won't be logging onto that site under 'greenpesto'.
( Repercussions & all that! )
This new site will give us ( I hope! ) greater access into the running of our business.
The only concern is that this will create a greater distance between 'us' & those at 'Ivory Towers' Colwick because things become 'automated'.
It is just a pity that 'phase 3' couldn't be 'phase 1' !!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 1234global on Jun 10, 2006 21:14:54 GMT 1
as far as i,m concerned it is a no go it is another way of them offloading their costs on to us and also a tool to get rid of agents who do not agree with company policy
|
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Jun 10, 2006 21:24:15 GMT 1
Don't be so negative.  As with anything coming from Hillarys, or any other company, take what works for you, and leave the rest. Things like DOR/spares ordering, on-line order tracking, reference to training manuals, are all to the benefit of anyone who wants to use it. Advisor discussion forum can stay here, where people can express themselves openly. |
|
dolly
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by dolly on Jun 10, 2006 21:36:42 GMT 1
Totally agree with you GVM. Anything that can save us time ringing and also free up more time Hillarys end would benefit us all in the long run.
Each individual can choose to use it as much or as little as they like. For all our gripes with Hillarys its worth giving it a try first.
|
|
|
|
Post by golfsthegame on Jun 10, 2006 21:43:15 GMT 1
I agree with GVM & greenpesto, most of what is proposed is what we have been asking for anyway so why boycott it? And how can it be offloading costs onto us 1234global most of us will be on broadband so no extra costs are incurred. At least it will save time as we wont have to hang on the phone for god knows how long just to speak to someone.
|
|
osram
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by osram on Jun 10, 2006 21:43:27 GMT 1
Keenasmustard is spot on with this they can't even get the dates right on the letter phase 3 spring 2006  . Who wrote it the tea girl who started last week ? who checked it the cleaner ? and to think this has been sent out to probably about 800 advisor's you would think basic checks would be in place. I know it sounds pedantic but it is not just this mistake as you all know there is lots of little mistakes that happen every single day. Some things would be very good, online diary adjustment , spares ordering , training manuals , raising dor's etc but as for a discussion forum no thanks I'd rather stay with this one and remain anonymous too much fear of reprisals less leads new advisor's set on in area etc. I could go on and on and on like most of you regular posters do every day but i don't see the need for it repeating over and over again, i do agree with your posts 99.9% of the time and enjoy logging on and reading your posts, and i do earn a decent living doing a fairly easy job, it is made hard by head office and their staff alot of the time but i must say a hand full of them a very good. In most company's you have alot of people who are good at there job and a few who are not i think at Hillarys it is the other way round. And i could think of alot worse to be doing or even having answer to a supervisor or manager every day i would not want to go back to that. |
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Jun 10, 2006 21:56:43 GMT 1
Agree totally with osram. I also earn a decent living from Hillarys, despite the fact they are making it harder and harder. I enjoy this work, most of the time. I have good days and bad days. Sometimes they're bloody good, occasionally they're bloody awful, but I'd rather be doing this than back in engineering listening to the same dreary voices at the same dreary meetings.
As I said, whatever initiative it is, take what works for you, but don't immediately discard what doesn't initially seem positive. At the risk of returning to management speak .......
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got.
or
If you're standing still, you're going back wards, because the competition is moving forwards.
The competition I have now is very different to 5 years ago. The product mix is very different, can't remember last time I sold 5" verticals or 35mm venetians, but there was a time that's all I sold.
|
|
*Star*man*
Full Member
Advisor with some experience - UK
Posts: 171
|
Post by *Star*man* on Jun 10, 2006 22:16:30 GMT 1
Have now seen the mailer concerning the proposed new hillarys web site for poor old advisors!
I suggest we all respond in favour , But...... with the exception of a discussion forum . This would be hosted and moderated by Hillary's , and as such is a definate No No !
So ... Motters and Moderators, what is the point of your meeting at Colwick about the security of this site ? Are Hillarys asking you to close this one down?
There must always be a seperate discussion forum , away from Hillary's , if not here ,then there is the Original one , still on Yahoo groups!
|
|
|
|
Post by RED on Jun 10, 2006 23:05:43 GMT 1
Have now seen the mailer concerning the proposed new hillarys web site for poor old advisors! I suggest we all respond in favour , But...... with the exception of a discussion forum . This would be hosted and moderated by Hillary's , and as such is a definate No No ! So ... Motters and Moderators, what is the point of your meeting at Colwick about the security of this site ? Are Hillarys asking you to close this one down? There must always be a seperate discussion forum , away from Hillary's , if not here ,then there is the Original one , still on Yahoo groups! All I can say at this point is to stand by for announcement from all the moderators in due course. But have no worries you will not loose your independant forum. Red |
|
|
|
Post by Augustus on Jun 11, 2006 18:48:23 GMT 1
more to come later, but I am working on upgrading our forum which will need greater security . still in the works but might be ready for the end of the month.
It's all good tho guys so don't panic .
P
|
|
|
|
Post by JoY on Jun 11, 2006 19:11:57 GMT 1
Have now seen the mailer concerning the proposed new hillarys web site for poor old advisors! I suggest we all respond in favour , But...... with the exception of a discussion forum . This would be hosted and moderated by Hillary's , and as such is a definate No No ! So ... Motters and Moderators, what is the point of your meeting at Colwick about the security of this site ? Are Hillarys asking you to close this one down? There must always be a seperate discussion forum , away from Hillary's , if not here ,then there is the Original one , still on Yahoo groups! The Hillarys New website will work for us in that we will be able to contact all the advisors and invite them to join ours!! ;D ;D |
|
blindmansam
Full Member
P/T advisor (over 5 years)
Posts: 225
|
Post by blindmansam on Jun 11, 2006 22:43:32 GMT 1
Well that will be most interesting to see if Hillary's will allow us to 'capture' more advisors for this forum, But i sense they will some how forbid it! Worth a try tho Joy ! Have now seen the mailer concerning the proposed new hillarys web site for poor old advisors! I suggest we all respond in favour , But...... with the exception of a discussion forum . This would be hosted and moderated by Hillary's , and as such is a definate No No ! So ... Motters and Moderators, what is the point of your meeting at Colwick about the security of this site ? Are Hillarys asking you to close this one down? There must always be a seperate discussion forum , away from Hillary's , if not here ,then there is the Original one , still on Yahoo groups! The Hillarys New website will work for us in that we will be able to contact all the advisors and invite them to join ours!! ;D ;D |
|
alcli01957
Junior Member
ACCY STANLEY Div 2 Hello boys we're back! & Bloody well staying this time!
Posts: 72
|
Post by alcli01957 on Jun 11, 2006 23:31:09 GMT 1
Filled mine in. Agree with GVM take waht works & as for this forum why do we need another unless its within the H philosophy if it works, break it! Would be better for them to use what obvoiously works though & participate more on this site other than the usual FSMs & RSM's we know have a nosey from time to time & occasionally give some feedback. We all work for thae same company, same aims I hope, so why not join in more fully. Too logical maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlindWizard on Jun 13, 2006 0:48:09 GMT 1
Hilarys Website will save lots of time and offer information so it needs to be supported. With regard to forum yes support it for dialog with Hillarys but we must also have our own forum that is not controlled by Hillarys.
I returned form saying I'd use all but the sales reports and figures as they are not accurate and therefore a waste of time.
|
|
.
