I think we are beating a dead horse at this point. Basically there
are two sides - one feels that B&H screwed the customer and should
not be trusted and the the other that thinks it was an honest mistake
and the customer is being unreasonable. Through all of this
'discussion' (if you can call it that) neither side has had much
impact on the other - much like OS wars and brand wars.
So let's move on. Those who don't want to buy from B&H anymore are
more than welcome to put their money elsewhere and those who do
choose to buy from them may do so.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, February 1, 2010, 2:05:54 PM, you wrote:
TC> To answer directly, I'd be very unhappy and disappointed, especially
TC> if as a concientous and bargain hunting shopper, I'd found a good deal
TC> and either my ethics or intelligence were called into question by the
TC> vendor.
TC> I understand what Mark is saying, yet I agree with P.J.
TC> Does not the seller, a very large retailer at that, have some
TC> responsibility? If I walked into a Best Buy and found a mis-marked
TC> item I would insist it be sold to me for the marked price and I'd take
TC> it up the chain to Store Manager, and then to regional offices, if
TC> necessary. Quite frequently employers are at fault because they have
TC> either not hired competent people or have not trained them properly.
TC> They should bear that cost as a consequence.
TC> Putting myself in the seller's shoes:
TC> As an *individual*, if I accidentally sold my one and only personal
TC> K-7 on a 'Buy it Now' basis, at half of the intended-price, which is
TC> what this essentially is, I would probably contact the buyer and let
TC> them know that the auction was in error, and I couldn't sell my K-7
TC> for half of it's value. I don't even know eBay's policies in this
TC> regard, but I'd hope the buyer would understand. I've purchased an
TC> item from Ebay where the seller miscalculated the shipping and
TC> essentially sold me the item for about 1/3 of what was intended. She
TC> contacted me and I suggested that I split the difference in shipping
TC> with her and she agreed that was fair and we both took a hit.
TC> As a *corporate vendor* with thousands of customers and millions of
TC> items sold, with the money not coming out my own personal pocket, I'd
TC> more than likely considerate it a cost of doing business, sell the
TC> item as advertised, fix my database behind the web page, flog the
TC> person responsible for the bad data, and know that I made the customer
TC> happy by honoring the sales agreement. I'd not view it as much a loss
TC> of revenue, as I would an investment in goodwill and customer
TC> relations. Each and every happy customer is one that will likely
TC> bring repeat business or additional business through word of mouth.
TC> If for whatever reason that was not possible, I'd still try and make a
TC> goodwill gesture. In this case as the corporate vendor selling the
TC> speakers, I might offer to send the second speaker if the buyer paid
TC> the shipping, or sell the speaker at my cost with no markup,
TC> essentially acknowledging my mistake and taking a meaningful measure
TC> of responsibility, yet still managing to mitigate the disappointment.
TC> We're only talking about $250 here. For a high volume retailer like
TC> B&H to engage in such penny ante behavior over 1) such a small amount
TC> and 2) a situation at which they were at fault... well that's why I
TC> shake my head and find this onerous and preosterous.
TC> Tom C.
TC> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, P. J. Alling
TC> <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not catching it before you got the camera, it's:
>>
>> 1.) You see the unbelievable price for the K-7 and you hit buy,
>>
>> 2.) You give them your credit card number,
>>
>> 3.) They debit your credit card,
>>
>> 4.) They mail you a link to an online receipt that shows you bought a K-7.
>>
>> Now comes conjecture since they probably wouldn't send you 1/2 of a K-7.
>>
>> 5.) Your purchase is delivered and you discover they shipped you a K-x
>> because that's what the amount of money you authorized pays for.
>>
>> 6..) Whey you contact them to complain, they then blame you because you
>> should have known that a K-7 just wouldn't be sold for such a low price.
>>
>> That's the equivelent to what B&H did.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/2010 2:41 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a thought experiment:
>>>
>>> What would you do if you went to the B&H web site right now and saw a
>>> Pentax K7 listed for $514.00?
>>>
>>> If I were in the market for a K7 I might try to get it for that price.
>>> In fact, if the Sony A850 showed up on B&H for $1000 I'd hit the "Buy"
>>> button so fast there'd be skid marks on the mouse pad. But if they
>>> caught it before I got the camera I'd just shrug my shoulders and
>>> think "Damn, they caught that one..." I certainly wouldn't throw a
>>> wobbler over it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> {\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.
