I do want to understand, Bob!
 

[QUOTE=Bob Dopolina;21844764]Bob: Thanks for spelling all that out. It's quite interesting and illuminating to see the thought process behind a business policy set out in this detail. I'll send you a PM later on today when I can get some of the work off my desk, but since I have been misunderstood publicly, I want to make one last attempt to be clear.

I am not questioning your actions. You're the business owner and get to make decisions without being second guessed ... and you were there, I wasn't. I was not being critical of your process. I think your questions to this customer were completely reasonable. I was not questioning the efficacy of the process, either. You're right, one is efficient, the other not. Nor was I disagreeing with you about this customer being unreasonable: from your recounting of the interaction, he was a jerk.

I was only saying this, though I didn't say it well: Whatever you do has, on the one side, your very rational reason, which you understand intimately. But it has, on the other side, not only the customer's intention (to screw you, to work out their anger over some other part of their life on the only handy target, to get on with their life, etc.) but also the customer's reading of that intention behind what you're doing. So if your very reasonable policy causes the customer to reach the conclusion that it's a sham to prevent the customer from getting relief, you're going to turn that customer off. I'm a compliance lawyer, and I can tell you that in almost every case of a consumer complaint to my clients, it starts with the customer inferring this intention. Even if your intention is completely honorable and understandable.

That's the key: What does your policy look like to the customer? There are actually lots of FTC cases on very detailed return policies: in some circumstances these can be unfair or deceptive. I'm not saying yours is either unfair or deceptive,* but the point is that there's a spectrum between "no questions asked return" and "fill this in, in triplicate, and provide every piece of initial packaging and your original credit card receipt." The repeated questions that you recounted--to me*--after the first or second repetition started to look like they were in the "provide every piece" territory.

I'm only saying one thing here: it pays to consider a slightly--only slightly--different approach.

And with that, I'm going to bow out of this discussion.
----------------
*I am required to say that I am not giving legal advice.

I think that it's less that you've been misunderstood publicly and more that you've publicly misunderstood. *shrug*

Your entire argument is: "the fact that you pointed out that someone is wrong makes you wrong" - and you followed it up by "the fact that you pointed out that my argument is wrong makes you wrong".

Please just stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Go read the original post and/or have someone explain it to you.

(I have bought some stuff from BDop and they are Good Guys).

Duplicate

As someone who runs a small business, I can assure you that there ARE customers you want to lose. Simply not worth the hassle. By caving in to ridiculous demands, you only encourage this sort of behavior.

Let's see what happened: Customer emailed for warranty, his first answer was to say "yes, we will sort you out, just give us the info we need to do so". That's a GOOD thing. Then he gave the customer multiple chances to provide the info. It's easy for you to tell him to go ahead and provide a refund without verifying - those of us who actually run these damn businesses do so to make a living, not for charity.

Seriously, in what world are you interpreting this as him being difficult? Is this just the typical Bikeforums contrarian post just for the heck of it?

Sorry, but that first part - no one is right or wrong: in some disagreements, that is certainly true. But it is definitely NOT a truism, as you make it out to be. In some cases, one party - buyer or seller - can flat out lie or misrepresent or otherwise be in the wrong. To argue that there are always 2 sides of the story is moral relativism taken to absurd levels.

To argue that sellers should put up with lying customers for fear of losing them is equally absurd. Why not just let shoplifters get away with things then - they might not come back, they might tell their friends and after all, there are 2 sides to the story.

I mean, i get the general point you are making about customer service, but how in the name of ghu does any of that generic stuff apply in this particular case???

^ Just like the scummy salesman I was saying, you're very upset at someone pointing out your favorite tactics, and will conntinue with saying anything - any lie, insult, or abuse - to try to keep getting away with it.

^ Just like the scummy customer I was saying, you're very upset at someone pointing out your favorite tactics, and will conntinue with saying anything - any lie, insult, or abuse - to try to keep getting away with it.

So wait, are you now calling me "scummy?"

Having the audacity to ask a customer ANY BASIC QUESTIONS is somehow displaying dishonest, underhanded behavior?

Please show us on the doll where reality touched you.

His entire line of reasoning rests on the unassailable foundation of him being right. Anyone that sees it differently is wrong, because he is right. Any facts that contradict him must be lies, because he is right. Supporting facts with logic is browbeating, because he is right and you're a lying liar and he can see through your games. Rinse, repeat.

Notice how far you went to try to turn this into that? These used to confuse me, then I realized...

I'm talking to this person.
https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aXx21XP_700b.jpg

Apparently with BDop Cycling Company Ltd is a common case that your customers get mad at you, and you're practiced at exhausting, degrading, and attacking them for it - to the point of going onto forums and bragging about it. I can't imagine wanting to order from there to begin with.

Like I said usually this is just solved with something like:

I don't have any skin in this game and I've never noticed your posts being negative before but this time you are way off base. Sorry, I'm not trying to insult you, just an observation.

Wow. Even given the general idiocy that permeates the 41, this is a truly special post.

And re the bolded stuff - past tense is incorrect. Stuff STILL confuses you.

Reality and he dont seem to have EVER crossed paths.

I'm not sure what happened to you but it must have been tragic.

Time to close this mess before half of you get put in Bike Forum jail for insulting and unnecessary arguing.