Did you believe it was reasonable to expect it to be suitable for transporting crocodiles? Is that a common usage scenario for ripstop nylon bags? Did you previously use your old nylon bag for the same purpose? Were you advised that this would be an ideal solution for crocodile transportation at point of sale?
Page 1:
Metal wearing through fabric bag after vibrating for hours on a bike ride…who’d have thought it?
Especially when you’ve ignored half of my point.
You mean this?
I was referring to the OP or others having an increased general expectation that anything that fails should be replaced FOC irrespective of fault.
I don't believe that was what the OP (or anyone else) was asserting. Read the thread title. The OP was asking whether they were in the right or being unreasonable.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that anything should be refunded "irrespective of fault." Rather as I said earlier it may be in a company's net best interest to do so, but that was a comment about good business practice rather than consumer expectation.
eh?
Or do you just like building straw men?
Did you take my post entirely seriously?
Just to clarify, I don't think crocodiles are analogous to multi-tools.
I thought about saying axe, but then someone would have thought I was being serious as it is, although faintly ridiculous, another type of tool. I went for crocodile to eliminate (almost) all doubt.
I apologise to everyone involved and I can clarify that no crocodiles (or ripstop lightweight nylon bags) were hurt in the process.
Would a crocodile skin bag be suitable for carrying tools?
There's very little information available regarding crocodile bags; I always double-up just to be sure
Is the op still waiting for a refund ?
There’s very little information available regarding crocodile bags; I always double-up just to be sure
A retailer shouldn’t be forced to refund low-value items below whatever cut-off value you happen to pull out of your arse. That’s just silly. Rather, it may make better business sense purely for the benefits of positive PR and goodwill to take the hit on something that’s been damaged instead of spending the wages of two members of staff to argue about it for an amount of time.
So, you are suggesting exactly what I asked earlier then.
Should the massive international corporation have a customer services/ refunds Policy that says they will just refund anything damaged/ruined, below a certain price, regardless of fault ??
Because it would need to be an official policy across all branches, we aren’t talking about a little indie shop that can make decisions like that on the fly. It’s a massive chain that needs to have a policy for everything, and the staff stick to it.
The OP may or may not have unreasonable expectations, but even if they do, who cares for the sake of a loss of probably about three quid to an international corporation vs a bit of good PR? Three quid to have someone jumping on the web / social media saying how awesome a company is, that’s a bloody bargain!
Thing is, it's exceptionally rare a customer will go online to praise, only go online to complain, or worse yet "need to vent" (FFS pull yourself together, you don't need to vent, you need to get your emotions in check). So the "non warranty" good service never gains any traction, so is therefore worthless. In fact worse than worthless - not only does it cost money, it rewards chancing it, undermines staff (and your staff should ALWAYS be the first people you support) and risks getting a reputation for acquiescing to unreasonable demands. Better to lose the demanding and non profitable customer to allow you to devote time to the revenue generating ones.
So the “non warranty” good service never gains any traction, so is therefore worthless. In fact worse than worthless .
Depends on the business. Even if you don't get the positive PR you still get the potential to make more sales to that customer.
you still get the potential to make more sales to that customer.
hes already covered that later in the post...
...Better to lose the demanding and non profitable customer to allow you to devote time to the revenue generating ones.
And I would say that’s pretty much spot on
Should the massive international corporation have a customer services/ refunds Policy that says they will just refund anything damaged/ruined, below a certain price, regardless of fault ??
Because it would need to be an official policy across all branches,
I'm saying that there may be a business case for it. Whether they should or not I've no idea, I'm not a massive international corporation.
I'd expect that there are official policies about lots of things across the company. Perhaps the policy could be to empower branch managers to give refunds for goods under a certain value, at their discretion. That way they can apply a customer attitude filter and also it'd prevent customers from being able to take the piss.
Perhaps the branch manager applied discretion and decided that customer was taking the piss and bag is not designed to carry metal tools .....afterall no where does it say "carrying metal tools" in the description.
Thing is, it’s exceptionally rare a customer will go online to praise, only go online to complain,
Sure. The "forum update" thread is a beautiful demonstration of that.
Thing is though, people do talk, whether that's online or with friends or family or whatever. Only last week I was relaying a story to work colleagues about good customer service I'd received. Ok, that's not going to have the same reach as somewhere like, say, STW, but all it takes is for me to make one recommendation to someone that's followed up on and the shop might get its lost three quid back tenfold.
If you want John Lewis type returns service, you pay John Lewis prices. I'm actually glad to know that any money spent in go outdoors isn't used to prop up foolish consumers resulting in jacked up prices
So not all bad publicity for go outdoors I'd say..
no where does it say “carrying metal tools” in the description.
If it doesn't list any specific items at all, do we conclude that we can't put anything in it?
The product description says "gear." As I said on the previous page, this hinges on how we define "gear." Would that include a multi-tool?
Is it reasonable to expect that if the bag isn't suitable for certain types of "gear" that people might reasonably assume were safe, then it should perhaps come with a warning to that extent?
It's reasonable to assume that a thin, lightweight nylon bag won't be strong enough to hold pointy metal objects if it's left to rub against anything. Really - do folk need to be taught this stuff?
No warning needed, it’s common sense.
Perhaps the policy could be to empower branch managers to give refunds for goods under a certain value, at their discretion.
They already have that.
That way they can apply a customer attitude filter and also it’d prevent customers from being able to take the piss.
I presume that’s what’s happened here.
It’s reasonable to assume that a thin, lightweight nylon bag won’t be strong enough to hold pointy metal objects if it’s left to rub against anything. Really – do folk need to be taught this stuff?
And yet, the OP's previous bag coped just fine.
They already have that.
Then what on earth are you arguing about?
To be fair, I have a bigger one of those Osprey Uktralight Dry Bags (I assume it’s the same fabric as the one the OP bought) and the material is so thin a bag of merino socks could tear it if they were washed without fabric softener.
I would never put anything metal in there, it’s bloody obvious it would create problems very fast.
It’s reasonable to assume that a thin, lightweight nylon bag won’t be strong enough to hold pointy metal objects if it’s left to rub against anything. Really – do folk need to be taught this stuff?
And yet, the OP’s previous bag coped just fine.
the op’s previous bag clearly wasn’t the Ultralight Nylon type though was it.
Better to lose the demanding and non profitable customer to allow you to devote time to the revenue generating ones.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">similar to my previous post. This. This times 1 million. </span>
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Couger, I’m sure you could argue in an empty room. CRA was never designed to be a free for all for consumers, but a standard basis from which ‘issues’ could be discussed and resolved fairly. The OP is discussing a non-issue. </span>
£8 and bounced a couple of metal tools about in it?? This is not what the the CRA was designed for.
hes already covered that later in the post…
No he did not. how does returning one item suddenly make you non profitable to a business?
The old bag was special. He kept his magic beans in it.
No he did not. how does returning one item suddenly make you non profitable to a business?
I may not have explicitly typed it, but that's the point I was getting at.
From many years in customer facing roles when I was younger, a complaining customer is a complaining customer. It's a mindset. Hence the popular online meme of the "can I see the manager haircut" etc. Also, Go Outdoors are not an FMCG outlet, so this week's return doesn't prejudice next week and the week after's grocery shop. They fall into occasional purchase. So a returned bag, refunded unnecessarily, probably wipes out the net profit on that consumer unless they have made a load more purchases in the same fiscal year.
So a returned bag, refunded unnecessarily, probably wipes out the net profit on that consumer unless they have made a load more purchases in the same fiscal year.
If it was a higher ticket item i could appreciate that being the case. This is an £8 bag
complaining customer is a complaining customer.
maybe she was just unhappy about her bag not being tough enough
So a returned bag, refunded unnecessarily, probably wipes out the net profit on that consumer
How is that a problem in the grand scheme of things though? Go Outdoors makes a million quid's profit that month rather than £1,000,005?
Are you saying that Go Outdoors don't care about repeat custom? Or anyone that attempts to return something that they're not entitled to return is probably a problem child and they're better off rid?
(Genuine questions, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, not start an argument)
Unreasonable.
Cougar - you must be able to recognise that there are some customers that are just too much hassle to deal with? Sometimes you can spot them by your first interaction. Unfortunately, shops don't have a "Ban" button.
@Cougar - yes, it's a massive problem if bad refunds erode into the margins of the business. An increase trendline for refunds on the financial reports get investors worried as it's lost profitability.
As for GO's valuing of repeat consumers, can't comment there as I don't work for them.
With regards "problem child" customers - plenty of businesses cull the bottom 5-10% of consumer base each year. If they're valueless on a net level, there's no point servicing them. Sounds brutal, but bloody good business sense. So a non entitled refund attempter, who's annual spend falls below a threshold and so isn't a key retention target isn't worth holding onto. "Customer lifetime value" and tiering customers (and so setting the levels of support, discounts, extended terms, special treatment etc etc) is something I've been heavily involved with for the last 8 years or so, both B2B and B2C so I'm speaking from a position of decent knowledge and experience.
I'm just going to agree with cynic-al.
It's £8.
Move on.
Can we set up a poll/vote and settle this noce and for all?
Even I'm bored with it now. aP and scotroutes are with me, we must be right.
Thanks for the clarification, Andy.
Is "word of mouth" not worth much in the grand scheme of things?
Cougar – you must be able to recognise that there are some customers that are just too much hassle to deal with? Sometimes you can spot them by your first interaction. Unfortunately, shops don’t have a “Ban” button.
Very meta
Can we set up a poll/vote and settle this noce and for all?
Even I’m bored with it now. aP and scotroutes are with me, we must be right.
Votes cynic-al
cynic-al for president!
I suspect stealthcat moved on after the first page.
At £8 I'd move on. But, to take some of the parallel examples, if I took a load of rubble to the tip in my new car (within the load capacity of the vehicle) then whether it was a sub 10k car or an RS6, I would be upset if this resulted in a hole in the bodywork.
I wouldn't expect the cheaper car to be that bad. And if a dry bag was that fragile, I'd stop selling it or at least stop describing it as tough if I wanted to avoid refunds, rather than culling a customer for buying something that's described as a bargain but clearly isn't up to the job.
Again, at 8 pounds is not worth the hassle, but is it on the other hand worth selling if it puts off customers that would've paid more for a better and more functional product if you just refused to stock overhyped crap (which this appears to be -we're talking one ride in a backpack, not that much abrasion however well packed the bag was).
Cougar – you must be able to recognise that there are some customers that are just too much hassle to deal with?
Not Zokes though.
Famously not a customer. 😉
.... for buying something that’s described as a bargain but clearly isn’t up to the job.
Just to be clear, this is an Osprey Dry Bag we are talking about here. Not some budget brand rubbish.
Osprey Have been selling the same dry bags for quite a long time, mine is five or six years old and is used regularly. So, it is quite [b]clearly up to the job[/b] That it was designed for.
But... I don’t put my Leatherman or other tools in it, because that would ruin it. It’s an ultralight nylon bag after all.
Ironically, being quite a high end brand, Osprey also make a nice Tool Roll that saves your tools from damaging the fabric of your bag 😂
I don't think the OP mentioned a brand.
FWIW I have a few Exped drybag. Some are thick enough to stand a bit of abuse, others (the lightweight ones) really aren't so I don't think tgat being of a "reputable" brand is relevant.
I don’t think the OP mentioned a brand.
No. but Go Outdoors only do one 3L dry bag. It’s an Osprey, it’s under £8 and it’s Ultralight Ripstop Nylon. And it’s described as being for keeping “gear” dry as the OP quoted .
So I made an assumption 😉
