Belkin Customer Service Rant

[leehljp]

I use search and google for a product and company often. Lately, I have gotten to the point that I don't necessarily trust Amazon's customer's rating due to the fact that they reward some of reviewers. (Search for that info.) I have been burned on two occasions by very nice web page layouts and presentations. I have learned that "my intuition" is not above getting deceived.

As to Belkin, I rate them with the equivalent of HF - Some products are good, some are not. As to CS, I do use them often (online or call) except at big stores (Wally World, HD. etc.) I always look at their returns/cs department and the line there. If I notice a line there, I tend to remember it and that factors into large purchases. I hate standing in lines for more than 3 to 4 minutes. IN the past 5 years, I have stood in line in Walmart and HD twice each, for about 20 minutes each time. I hate that.

[cwsmith]

Woodturner,

Maybe your state,s AG isn't all that helpful, but my AG's office responded exactly like I stated. I didn't ask for credentials, that's a little difficult to evidence on the telephone. But, I did immediately get the form, filed it, their state AG was contacted and I did get the product at the sales price without further ado. Did they make a "good will adjustment"... ABSOLUTELY. But they didn't do it, offer it, or express any willingness to do anything, until they were contacted via the AG. (I don't appreciate your alluding to "odd" as if I don't know what I'm talking about or am stating something that isn't true.)

The many regional AG offices are there for many reasons and consumer protection is one of those. They, as you say, will not take legal action on behalf of an individual, but they will make an inquiry if they see fit.

Whether this kind of thing is a common practice for retailers or not, I won't argue. But this is certainly not any common practice with any of the retailers that I've known. I've spent some time in Marketing, and my son is a Cornell graduate and holds a Bachelors in Industrial Labor Relations and a Masters in Business. The practice of setting a sale price on an item, and then telling your customer that you are out of stock, when you actually do still have inventory that you will sell at a higher price is totally improper. If you advertise a sale, you may limit the time period as advertised, but you cannot turn around and tell a customer that you no longer have the item for the sale price while at the same time continuing to sell the same.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving,

CWS

[woodturner]

Maybe your state,s AG isn't all that helpful, but my AG's office responded exactly like I stated.

I was referring to the AGs in the states you mentioned (have experience with both).

I don't appreciate your alluding to "odd" as if I don't know what I'm talking about or am stating something that isn't true.

You missed the point - I was not questioning your reporting of the events, just pointing out that the person telling you that did not have the knowledge or authority to make that statement.

But they didn't do it, offer it, or express any willingness to do anything, until they were contacted via the AG

The local store did not, but you likely would have gotten a better response if you had called the national CS. Personally I prefer to give the merchant a reasonable chance to resolve an issue - and on those rare cases where I have had issues the local store would not resolve, CS has taken care of it. Keep in mind local Rockler stores are franchises - it's essentially a separate small business, so customer experience can vary widely between stores.

Whether this kind of thing is a common practice for retailers or not, I won't argue. But this is certainly not any common practice with any of the retailers that I've known.

Do you not shop at Sears, Lowes, Home Depot, Rockler, Woodcraft, Kmart, Walmart, Staples, OfficeMax, OfficeDepot, Lee Valley, Holbren, Garret Wade, ToysRUs, Kohls, Menards, BJs, BestBuy, Kroger, etc.? If it is not common practice with the retailers you know, you must only be shopping with small local shops - EVERY major retailer does this. It's more likely you are not aware of it or have not noticed it before. Check the fine print in nearly every ad - they pretty much all have the "limited quantity" disclaimer.

The practice of setting a sale price on an item, and then telling your customer that you are out of stock, when you actually do still have inventory that you will sell at a higher price is totally improper.

The point is that it is not the same item - it has a different UPC or part number, even though it appears to be the identical item (and may, in fact, be the same item except for a different UPC or part number). To convince yourself of this, look at a doorbuster item, say a printer, in a BF ad. Try to find specs on that exact part number - you generally won't find them. To get the specs, you will have to look up the regular part number rather than the sale part number.

If you advertise a sale, you may limit the time period as advertised, but you cannot turn around and tell a customer that you no longer have the item for the sale price while at the same time continuing to sell the same.

Again, the missed point seems to be that they are not "the same" item, but different part/SKUs that happen to be very similar.

[cwsmith]

Perhaps you didn't understand or I didn't make it clear... I didn't go into a Rockler franchise store, I called the national order desk based on an E-mail advertisement. The sale had been in effect for three days and still had a couple of days to go, but the sales ad said there was a limited stock. So, I called and asked about a specific item number and they said it was in stock. When I told them that I wanted to order four, they gave me a total of the regular price. When I told them that the item was on sale and that there was still two days to go for that sale, they responded with the statement that the sale item was out of stock. There was NO different in the item number, NO different UPC, NO difference in anything..... THAT is why I called three times (as previously stated) to confirm what I was hearing.

I shop at most of the stores that you listed and I've NEVER had that kind of a problem; and I'm far more aware than most customers. If I go into a store to buy something on sale I do expect that I will get it at that price if they have it. IF they don't, than that's that. But a sales person can't tell me that they do have the item, but only at the regular price. I'm a very understanding, and well-mannered consumer. You don't have the item, the item you do have is slightly different, the sales date or price printed was wrong, whatever... I'm perfectly happy to accept those as valid.

Sales that state that the sale is only for the "First 100 customers", or only from "7 to 9" or other specific limits is perfectly legal and well accepted by everyone. But when you state that you're having a sale from one specific date to another, "with limited quantity" then that is what it is. IF the retailer tells me that they are sold out, that's the way it is, my bad luck and I should have called earlier. The retailer could have even set aside a specific number for the sale, and kept the rest of the inventory in the back room or the warehouse... that's okay too. But, if they decide that they are only going to sell a limited number of that specific item, then that is what they must do... and that specific item cannot be sold at a higher price during that same time period, without committing fraud. It's really plain and simple.

They can tell you that only the blue ones are on sale or somehow make other differentials; and, they can even keep the rest of the inventory hidden away somewhere. But, if that specific item is admittedly available during the sale period, then it must be sold for the advertised sale price.

In many stores, if the sale sign is still up, even after the sale week, they will still sell it at the sale price.... you show a price, you sell at THAT price. I'm far more understanding of such errors and have never made a fuss, but I have happily experienced that particular scenario on a few occasions. What I am not understanding of, and will NOT except, is "bait and switch"... you can't tell me it's on sale, that you still have the product, but that NOW the price is higher.

Likewise, as is the point of the original thread, you can't tell me that the product I bought has a warranty and that for some poorly managed reason you cannot fulfill the obligations of the warranty. A buyer deserves and should aggressively expect that the stated obligations be fulfilled.

Finally, with regard to "authority".... are you really in a position to state that whoever I or anyone else talked to, didn't have the authority to exercise whatever action that it took to resolve the problem? The problem was presented, it was resolved... I can only offer that the results speak for themselves.

Enough said,


CWS

[JoeyGee]

Customer service seems to be declining nearly everywhere. I had some issues with Garmin recently. If we don't stand up for our rights under a contract on the small stuff it will only get worse.

I thought I had an issue with Garmin. I have a GPS watch with an integrated band, so it's not easily replaced. Of course it broke and is out of warranty. A Google search told me I was pretty much SOL, as people called them on the issue and they charged minimum $70, plus shipping to fix (on a $125 watch). I e-mailed them, and they told me they would replace the whole thing for $25, with prepaid shipping by them.

I don't doubt at all you had an issue with them, but in fairness, I figured I would share my experience. I'm hoping they paid attention to all the people complaining about this particular issue and made a change--which, like you said, happened because us little people stood up.

[woodturner]

Finally, with regard to "authority".... are you really in a position to state that whoever I or anyone else talked to, didn't have the authority to exercise whatever action that it took to resolve the problem?

Yes, but the statement above is a mischaracterization of what I said. I observed that the person you talked with did not have sufficient knowledge of your situation or authority to give you legal advice or a legal opinion.

I understand your dissatisfaction with your experience, but a store operating differently than you would prefer is not necessarily illegal. I disagree with your legal interpretation and retailers can legally do what you describe.

To be clear, "bait and switch" is when a store entices you with one item, typically through an advertisement, then does not have that item and tries to get you to buy a different, typically more expensive or higher profit, item. In this case, they were unwilling to sell you a different item that you felt was the same item at the sale price for the first item.

Perhaps it's best to "agree to disagree" at this point, since it does not appear further explanation or discussion would be helpful.

[leehljp]

Woodturner:

In this case, they were unwilling to sell you a different item that you felt was the same item at the sale price for the first item.

That is not what he said/wrote. It is a mischaracterization of what he said.
What he in effect said was more like this:
"they were unwilling to sell him the same (not "a different") item [at the "sale" price] that that the salesman said (not "he felt") was the same item by virtue of it being in stock by the stock number, - which was the same stock number of the "sale" item. One and the same - not different.

Here is what he wrote: So, I called and asked about a specific item number and they said it was in stock. That is not "another" item. It is the SAME item.

[woodturner]

Here is what he wrote: So, I called and asked about a specific item number and they said it was in stock. That is not "another" item. It is the SAME item.

That assumes that item number and UPC are the same for both products, which may not be the case, in my experience, so they may have technically been "different products". That's how Rockler usually does it, in my experience.

I have not checked on this specific product, so I can't say in this particular case. However, even if it was exactly the same item number, UPC, etc., so it was literally the identical item, as long as the ad had "limited quantities" or similar language, they can legally sell the first 50 pieces (or whatever number they choose) at the sale price and the remaining stock at the regular price.

HF does this a lot - the free times typically have several UPCs for the same item number, that's how they track manufacturer.

[cwsmith]

Woodturner,

I'm sorry that you don't get it. No where did I state anything but the plain and simple fact that it was a very specific item... there was nothing different, it was the exact same item number!

You seem to be fixated on the fact that it was somehow DIFFERENT (perhaps that's been your only experience)... it wasn't. It was the same exact product in stock but no longer on sale by some planned decision, even though the purchase attempt was made during the published sale date. UNDERSTAND, it was the exact SAME item number that they still had, available and for sale but had the higher price.

While your perspective is respected, you apparently aren't reading or understanding that there was no difference whatsoever in the product offering. AND, it is "bait and switch" when a company offers you a sale price for an item and then switches to the regular price for your desired purchase. (The term "Bait and switch" is not restricted to just a change in product, it also can apply to a change in advertised price or warranty. It is the practice of using an advertisement to attract a sale and then switching the product, terms, price, or other such enticements.)

End of conversation, I'm done with this,

CWS

[woodturner]

You seem to be fixated on the fact that it was somehow DIFFERENT (perhaps that's been your only experience)... it wasn't.

I understand that your belief is that it was the identical item. My point is that a store can legally charge different prices for the exact same item. Car dealers do it all the time, as well as most retailers. Consider a veteran's discount - HD and Lowes, among others, offer veterans a 10% discount. It's largely an advertising ploy - they will give ANYONE a 10% discount on request. If we don't like the price for something, we negotiate a different price, essentially all prices are negotiable (as you demonstrated by negotiating a different price with Rockler).

Grocery stores are doing this now, too, offering a discount with a loyalty card. In the near future, technology will be deployed that displays pricing on an LCD display, so that the store can change pricing for each individual person as they approach the product (identifying each individual with an RFID tag or other code from their phone - which can be read even when the phone is "powered down"). This is already common practice online, where individuals are tracked by cookies and IP address to adjust pricing - Amazon is perhaps the most public example of this.

In most states, including New York, bait and switch refers specifically to a different product or terms. For example, the NY AG sued Dell for advertising finance terms, but selling customers different terms. Another example cites "Refusal to show, display, offer for sale, or sell the automobile advertised in accordance with the terms of the advertisement."

In your example, the advertisement almost certainly contained language indicating that "quantities are limited" - every Rockler ad I have ever seen contains that or a similar statement. For example, in today's BF sale ad, they said "limited quantities" on several items. The countersink kit was one example - my local store had four to sell at the $6.99 special price, with the remaining stock at the $12.99. I got the last one at $6.99, next buyer had to pay the $12.99, even though the sale lasts through the weekend. The key phrase that makes that legal is the "limited quantities" statement - if there is no such statement, the ad might well be interpreted as illegal.

In general, the government does not and cannot set maximum prices or restrict free trade - a seller can sell whatever they want at whatever price they choose, do not have to sell every identical item at the same price, and can choose to sell or not sell to a particular individual, provided they don't discriminate on the basis of a protected class.

I understand you have a different opinion and desire regarding how it should be, but it seems important to share the objective facts. Personally, I think Rockler is a pretty decent company and it seems unfair to "bash" them based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law, but that is just my opinion. This is why I suggested it might be best to "agree to disagree", I did not sense much interest in discussing the facts, and I'm not sure how to explain any better to help others understand the law. My best advice is to discuss it with your own attorney.

[Cochese]

Woodturner,

I'm sorry that you don't get it. No where did I state anything but the plain and simple fact that it was a very specific item... there was nothing different, it was the exact same item number!

You seem to be fixated on the fact that it was somehow DIFFERENT (perhaps that's been your only experience)... it wasn't. It was the same exact product in stock but no longer on sale by some planned decision, even though the purchase attempt was made during the published sale date. UNDERSTAND, it was the exact SAME item number that they still had, available and for sale but had the higher price.

While your perspective is respected, you apparently aren't reading or understanding that there was no difference whatsoever in the product offering. AND, it is "bait and switch" when a company offers you a sale price for an item and then switches to the regular price for your desired purchase. (The term "Bait and switch" is not restricted to just a change in product, it also can apply to a change in advertised price or warranty. It is the practice of using an advertisement to attract a sale and then switching the product, terms, price, or other such enticements.)

End of conversation, I'm done with this,

CWS

You may want to avail yourself of the ignore feature.