Another slant -- it may be your company's marketing strategy.  

For some of our products our compliance engineering group has determined
that the CE mark is sufficient for European markets; however, for marketing
reasons (read: "our customers like to see . . . ") we also obtain TUV
approval.  So some of our expense is strictly marketing related.  If the
payback is there, go for it!

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> ----------
> From:         Dan Mitchell[SMTP:dmitch...@eoscorp.com]
> Sent:         Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:26 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:      Are all these agencies really necessary?
> 
> The company I work for routinely requests that I get certifications
> through 
> the following safety agencies:
>       UL, VDE, SEMKO, DEMKO, NEMKO, FIMKO, EZU, QAS, GOST and
>       ad nausium.
> 
> My question is this;  Are all these agencies necessary?  If you get a base
> 
> safety certification from say, UL, coupled with a CB Report/Cert and a 
> third party EMC/EMI report to FCC ClassB, and EN50022, why is it necessary
> 
> to get the safety agency for every country you want to sell in?
> Why can't this industry come up with an all encompassing mark, lets call
> it 
> the OM (for Overall Mark) that is granted to your product after you get
> the 
> following:
>       1.  Base safety cert (from your agency of choice)
>       2.  CB Report/Cert
>       3.  FCC/Cispr22 cert
> THe mark would allow you to sell your product in any country in the world.
> 
>  It makes alot more sense than the way it is done now.  I can spend up to
> 3 
> months waiting for a certification to come back from China.
> The cost is outragous also.  If we spend $30,000 on the certification 
> process, we count ourself lucky.  I believe that alot of these new
> agencies 
> that have been appearing on the scene over the last couple of years are in
> 
> it strictly to make a buck.  All they have to do is block your product
> from 
> their market unless you pay their extortion money.
> 
> I know that this is opening up a can of worms, but I would like to know if
> 
> there are other disgruntled safety persons out there that feel the same 
> way.
> 
> This view is strictly my own.
> Daniel W. Mitchell
> Product Safety
> EOS Corp.
> 
> ---------
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
> administrators).
> 

---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
administrators).

Reply via email to