What would you do, Part the Second...

[Guest Grails]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

[Jeffro.]

RMA's second "single copy + freight" purchase is a deliberate act by a toxic customer who was disgruntled & looking for trouble and/or Comic General fodder.

 

 

[comix4fun]

To Comix4fun: Sounds like I need to clarify my role a little bit. I'm the lead developer for our business and also head up our consignment service. I post because I like the community on the boards and think it's good for us to be able to directly communicate with the collectors on here. I can answer questions and take feedback and suggestions from you guys. I don't own the company and I don't set our policies. Buddy does. I'm sorry if my posting under the name "mycomicshop" has given you the wrong impression. I'm one of a team of people that designs and builds the systems that run our web site and our business. I talk with our customers and propose ideas and make suggestions based on their feedback, but Buddy's is the final say. If I hear about something where it sounds like we messed up and our procedures weren't properly followed, I'm happy to check up on it and see if I can help. But, if our procedures were properly followed and the customer doesn't like our policy, I cannot interfere and reverse our handling of the issue just because somebody posted a negative thread in Comics General. So when I say "this is our policy", I'm not stonewalling, hiding behind words, or pretending that a policy can't be changed. I'm telling you what our company policy is, and that it's not something I'm able to change personally.

 

 

Well, thank you for clearing that up. That makes sense.

 

However, I guess it means Buddy should hop on down here.

[Ghost Town]

Our return policy has been the same for years, and 99% of our customers never have a problem with it.

 

Nevertheless, I did mention RMA's complaint, and Buddy confirmed that he wants to keep our return policy as-is.

If 99% of your customers never have a complaint with your return policy, what's the big deal about making things right in those rare cases where somebody complains? I can't imagine such a small percentage of error fixing would mess up the MCS business model or send your overhead costs soaring.

 

You sent the wrong book. It was easy to send the correct book once you were made aware of the error. To expect the customer to pay extra to make up for your error is pretty lousy company policy. And that's true no matter how much money somebody is spending with your business.

[Dale Roberts]

Our return policy has been the same for years, and 99% of our customers never have a problem with it.

 

Nevertheless, I did mention RMA's complaint, and Buddy confirmed that he wants to keep our return policy as-is.

If 99% of your customers never have a complaint with your return policy, what's the big deal about making things right in those rare cases where somebody complains? I can't imagine such a small percentage of error fixing would mess up the MCS business model or send your overhead costs soaring.

 

You sent the wrong book. It was easy to send the correct book once you were made aware of the error. To expect the customer to pay extra to make up for your error is pretty lousy company policy. And that's true no matter how much money somebody is spending with your business.

 

 

Thats the way I look at it. Happy customers are returning customers.

 

Call the shipping fee " investment in future business".

[mikenyc]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

[comix4fun]

Did you discuss this particular issue with Buddy? If not, why not?

 

I did mention it to him, when RMA first raised the issue last month. There wasn't much to discuss, since there isn't anything novel about RMA's situation that would cause us to handle it differently from any other case where we accidentally send an incorrect lower-value book and we issue a refund.

 

I realize Buddy is not here, and he's leaving you to take the heat, so please realize these comments are directed at the "policy makers" at Lonestar. Since you are the one here, I get to tell you.

 

If RMA's case is not "novel", which indicates it's nothing new, how does that jive with the 99 44/100th pure claim of satisfaction?

 

Also how does the fact that the same mistake has happened more than once make the mistake any less a mistake?

 

 

 

Our return policy has been the same for years, and 99% of our customers never have a problem with it.

 

Maybe Buddy should think about that for a second, just because only 1% complain about a policy doesn't mean that 99% don't have a problem with it, and it certainly doesn't mean you haven't lost several customers over the years, put off potential customers, and will continue to lose customers that will never tell you directly why they aren't doing business with you because of it.

 

I realize this isn't your policy, but this is a failure of basic business management understanding.

 

 

Nevertheless, I did mention RMA's complaint, and Buddy confirmed that he wants to keep our return policy as-is.

 

 

There's the stone wall over $1.50 in shipping I was talking about. I can't believe he thinks $1.50 in shipping eaten is worth more than all this bad mojo, seen by hundreds of comics fans, potential customers, and past customers. Wow.

 

Oddly enough, it's not a return policy question. It's a basic order fulfillment requirement. The easiest way to lose customers is to fail to admit mistakes and provide the customer the item they really want. A trivial $1.20 book will prevent a customer from ordering hundreds of dollars more. He will then tell everyone he knows about the screw up and the epic siege mentality that ensued and if even a small portion of those people take his complaint to heart the loss of potential future revenue is staggering. Buddy will realize this on his own or at the expense of his business.

 

Sadly, adhering blindly to a policy that makes the merchant's life easier and leaves the customer unsatisfied, angry, and vocal has torpedoed more than a few businesses.

 

His marketing savvy is epic in its myopic nature.

[Guest Grails]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

 

You still haven't answered my question. "I would make the customer whole?" There has been enough canned responses here today. It was a simple question. You sell me a book and ship the wrong one to me. How are you going to make me whole? Are you going to send me the correct book? Are you going to charge me for your error?

[seanfingh]

 

I love it when Charlie goes into Honey Badger mode.

[Rocketeer]

...this whole thread is nuts,...I would have;

 

A: Apologized

2: shipped out the correct $4.00 book free or charge and shipping

D: go back to my office and count the thousands of dollars I made the last year buying collections for pennies a book,....

 

...but hey that's just me,...I'm a giver,...Conan,..every time you post your store policies you get a little bit smaller,...if you keep posting you might just disappear altogether,...

 

...now excuse me,... my 3 month old lab jjust took a poop on the carpet,...

[Annihilus]

I love it when Charlie goes into Honey Badger mode.

 

[miraclemet]

21 pages later to me the issue is (and lord knows I've done this) the comic that was missing from the order was the tipping point to the whole order. So its less about the $1.20 and more about the whole order (from the buyers perspective, and isnt it good for a seller to try and see things from a buyers perspective?) If the missing comic had been the 23rd one on the order, and not the first one that predicated the whole order it probably would have had a different affect on the buyer.

 

With so much inventory being managed electronically, and listings being posted without actually checking against real inventory this scenario will continue to happen... it happened to me over at half.com (also an ebay store) with a seller listing an Omnibus at a good price. I buy, and after a month of back and forth (this seller had a long lead time for delivery which is fine, I dont mind waiting) the book never arrived. The seller maintains that the book was lost by the PO, even though they never show it entering the system (there was tracking on the order)... Seller refused to admit they had listed a book that they didnt actually have in stock, which I could have given them a pass on, but instead they held the "Post office lost it" line rather than just admitting their mistake... I got my money back of course, but annoying none the less, and they've lost me as a customer.

 

Apologizing goes a long way in this world.

[Norrin_Radd]

Thats the way I look at it. Happy customers are returning customers.

 

Call the shipping fee " investment in future business".

Sadly, adhering blindly to a policy that makes the merchant's life easier and leaves the customer unsatisfied, angry, and vocal has torpedoed more than a few businesses.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

[Park]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

 

 

 

Lonestar had the book in question the whole time.

 

I know I am probably one of the few who read RMA's War and Peace post (and I had to reread it) but the issue is not with the wrong book. It is that Lonestar had the book the whole time. They never sent out the wrong book.

 

They told him the book wasn't available when he bought it through Ebay. He went to the website and ordered it and they found it and sent it to him. That is 100% their mistake and RMA is 100% right in being irritated.

 

It doesn't make a rusty fudd of difference if we are talking about $3.95 or $395.

 

I will screw you for $3.95 but I won't screw you for $395. Come on.

 

 

[bryan91]

What I really want to know is if you ever got the 5th print?

 

If so, you should probably sell it to me so that you can get rid of the bad experience that you will be left remembering every time you see it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm not playing a silly word game.

 

You bought from them knowing they had a fill percentage shown on the listing (regardless of whether you feel it is 'ebay legal' or not) and your personal definition of 'beyond our control' is unrealistic as it demands perfection.

 

The transaction was completed, a book was missed & credit was issued - ( "I wanted the book not the credit") The book being "missed" (was available in inventory) renders the arguments made about not listing goods you don't have in inventory moot. They had the book & the fill percentage is there to cover them for human error, systemic issues etc.. that are 'beyond their control" to prevent - systemic error could include them listing the book as on hand when it's not - the ebay acceptable solution is to issue a credit when the error was beyond their control.

 

Your issue with them is not either transaction, you are looking for a goodwill credit (which is fine) but they can choose to deny it. I understand your point & the point of others - sure, he could have taken steps to make you a happy customer but there's nothing they've done that isn't defined & you are seeking a good will gesture.

 

 

Lord, just stop.

 

I know you have feelings for me, but this is just too much. Your logic is like angel hair pasta covered in olive oil on a bed of greased spider monkeys.

 

Seriously, just stop.

 

People are allowed to have their own opinions whether you agree with them or not.

 

You just can't resist, can you?

 

I will never post to or about RMA on these boards ever again.

 

Your word. Broken over and over and over again.

 

Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. What everyone is NOT allowed to do, however, is have those opinions go unchallenged, especially when they defy all logic, reason, and sanity.

 

 

[seanfingh]

What I really want to know is if you ever got the 5th print?

 

If so, you should probably sell it to me so that you can get rid of the bad experience that you will be left remembering every time you see it.

 

I've been waiting for one of these posts from the DOS mafia.

[bababooey]

RMA's second "single copy + freight" purchase is a deliberate act by a toxic customer who was disgruntled & looking for trouble and/or Comic General fodder.

 

 

Not sure why someone would "write" after accepting a credit for errors made prior to knowing that the book was available. The bold line below is where RMA got bent out of shape; his 'problem with MCS' started here. A good customer service relationship is a two way street.

 

Transaction #1 ends after the credit is accepted "I was ok with the refund"

 

Fast forward to receipt. The rare book isn't in the lot.

 

I notify dealer. Dealer promptly refunds the purchase price. There were a couple of other errors, too, but since I already owned copies, I was ok with the refund.

 

But...I didn't want the refund, I wanted the book. It's a tough, tough book to find, even if it's not worth anything.

 

So, I write. The response I get is canned "we only issue refunds", yadda blah, etc.

 

So, on a hunch, I go to said dealer's website.

 

Book is available (of course.)

 

So, I buy the book through the website...and, instead of giving me "free" shipping (since, after all, I'd already PAID the shipping), I'm charged another S&H fee.

 

Lo and behold, the correct book finally arrives, me having paid S&H for it twice.

 

So, I write back. I'm told that "sorry, but our current policy is to refund for mistakes, not to ship out the ACTUAL CORRECT ITEMS (emphasis mine.)"

 

[mikenyc]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

 

You still haven't answered my question. "I would make the customer whole?" There has been enough canned responses here today. It was a simple question. You sell me a book and ship the wrong one to me. How are you going to make me whole? Are you going to send me the correct book? Are you going to charge me for your error?

 

What is canned about my response? RMA used a portion of his $175,000 comic book budget and spent it on a transaction. A wrong book was shipped and a refund issued. RMA now has his comics + his money. That means he is whole. I believe you understand the concept fully.

 

In your equation you pay me x for book y. We have a contract. I supply book z in error. I have breached our contract. You return book z and I return your x. Done, in my thread I clearly state that I may ship the wrong book and if I do I'll refund your money.You place me on ignore, which will probably occur after our exchange, and you start a thread in a public forum about how naughty I am.

 

If you want me to say I would send the book, to validate your argument I can. I would send the book. Care to respond to anything I posed, or are you not a fan of the reach around. Selfish lovers are becoming an epidemic in CG.

[Whizzer]

I wonder what would've happened if a noob had started this thread