On Jan 31, 2010, at 6:29 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> I understand where B&H is coming from. However now I don't know if I can
> take any contract they make seriously. Right now for example Staples.com has
> the HP B8550 printer on sale for half price. Before if B&H had the same deal
> I would have had no hesitation to buy the same item from them, now I can't
> afford to believe them. I don't think B&H is dishonest exactly, but if they
> made a mistake, I don't know what I'd get, maybe I'll get half a printer, (OK
> that's being silly), but really I don't know how they'd handle it. Maybe
> they'd send me a different printer selling for the amount I authorized,
> (which depending on what they sent might amount to half a printer), since
> they seem to be able to change contracts at whim. Sure the disclaimer is
> they'll take it back at no cost to me, but what a pain in the ass that would
> be. I guess I'll still buy from B&H iif their price isn't too much lower
> than the competition.
>
Nonsense. B&H's record speaks for itself.
Paul
>
> On 1/31/2010 2:58 PM, P N Stenquist wrote:
>> 'm forwarding this message to allow Henry to be heard. He sent it to me and
>> asked me to pot it on the list. It in no way reflects any opinions of my
>> own. I have none:-). I'm sending it in two parts, as it's too large a file
>> for the list.
>> Paul
>>
>> I am sorry Igor is disappointed by our response to the customer who thought
>> he was buying two $250.00 speakers due to an inadvertent error on our site.
>> Any customer knowledgeable about the product would have immediately
>> recognized there was an error. I am sorry too Igor did not find my reply
>> sufficiently apologetic, but the flip side of this coin is the customer in
>> question, knowing there was an error, nevertheless wanted two for the price
>> of one and when we declined to accede to his request attempted to apply
>> leverage to us via his public complaints. What are the ethics of a customer
>> who wants two for one, knowing what he knew in the first place?
>>
>> @P. J. Alling
>> I've never had a problem with B&H personally but the attitude does bother
>> me. I do however have a problem with their attitude. Even if they mad a
>> mistake, what they've done is still against NY State law.
>>
>> Respectfully, I believe P. J. Alling is mistaken and our action in this
>> matter are not at all against NY state law. We have a team of in-house
>> lawyers who know pretty much everything we do in matters of this nature and
>> would certainly have stopped us were we violating the law.
>>
>>
>> Tom C
>> The disclaimor ... would probably not hold up under the law.
>>
>> As above -- the disclaimer was written by our in-house lead counsel and will
>> certainly hold up.
>>
>> @Igor
>> On a different subject, - I am rather annoyed by the recent thing
>> that B&H (and a few other resellers, including Adorama, Buydig,
>> Amazon, etc.) started doing when they do not show the price on their
>> website until you add the item to the shopping cart.
>> Some of them say that it dictated by the manufacturer not allowing
>> them to display low prices. I am not sure if that's all true, - but
>> that sounds like a bunch of bologna.
>> Does anybody know if there is any substantial reason behind that game?
>>
>> In fact I do. It is not bologna. It's the manufacturer's MAP agreement. MAP
>> = Minimum advertised price. This dictates the lowest price we can advertise
>> and what we may and may not do in print or online when the selling price is
>> below the MAP price. Retailers who've told you, "it dictated by the
>> manufacturer not allowing them to display low prices," are telling you the
>> complete truth.
>>
>> @Tom C
>> it is still a matter of false and misleading advertising.
>>
>> I believe you are mistaken. It was an inadvertent error. Saying it was
>> "false and misleading" implies it was done purposely with intent to mislead
>> or defraud. It was an inadvertent error.
>>
>> @P N Stenquist
>> "I've been working with B&H for many years and with 47th Street Photo before
>> them, which I believe was owned by the same group.
>> I've only been with B&H for 15 years, but as far as I know the owners of B&H
>> and the owners, then or now, of 47th St Photo are unrelated.
>>
>> @Boris Liberman
>> B&H has a small warehouse under our Manhattan store and our main warehouse
>> is in Brooklyn. We're working on a program to distinguish store stock from
>> Brooklyn warehouse stock for our web site. Any store customer who wants to
>> buy an item that's only in stock in the Brooklyn warehouse should be offered
>> free shipping to any address in the "lower-48" states.
>>
>> @Igor Roshchin
>> "Did B&H offer him to honor the wrong price if he pulls off his review..."
>> We did not. That would be unethical and would also violate resellerrating's
>> rules. The review in question was written by "Polymistis." He apparently
>> edited it so it's reverted to "Pending" status. It will reappear when it
>> shifts off
>> pending again.
>>
>> @Tom C "It's a stretch to think B&H reads the PDML"
>> Stretch away. :-)
>> "the next time a PDML member has a problem with a retailer, that after the
>> thread goes a while..."
>> We are ALWAYS concerned when a customer has a problem and as B&H's customer
>> ombudsman (Not water carrier) I take a personal interest in resolving such
>> difficulties with a minimum of red tale whenever possible.
>>
>
>
> --
> {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
> New;}}
> \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
> interface subtly weird.\par
> }
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
> the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
