What would you do, Part the Second...

[seanfingh]

 

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

 

 

But then he found out that it wasn't just an error (book already sold, website not updated) where the book no longer was available for purchase. It was still available for purchase and MCS couldn't be bothered to go track it down and get it to him, as they should have.

[bababooey]

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.

 

My Comic Shop will now supply 1 (one) dose of seroquel and or lithium when fill rates are not 100% - dosage doubled for residents of California.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hi guys, one last post before bed.

 

Regarding the text I added to our eBay listing, my intention was to insure that future customers will be as informed as possible about our policies before ordering. I mentioned it in this thread as an aside to point out something I was clarifying for future customers, not as anything that had retroactive bearing on RMA's issue.

 

The text of our return policy is relevant. The return policy says:

 

Any item may be returned if damaged, incorrectly graded, or the wrong item was sent. Return authorization is required, and a return must be requested within 14 days of delivery. We may be reached at (817) 860-7827 (M-F 9AM-5PM CST) or by messaging us through eBay (eBay no longer allows sellers to include their email address in item listings). We'll issue a full refund plus compensation for basic ground shipping costs for your return. Unauthorized returns will not be compensated for shipping. CGC graded comics are not returnable.

 

In RMA's case, we did what our return policy says we do in the event that a wrong item is sent: we issued a full refund. I believe the only disagreement is that RMA feels the appropriate resolution is for us to send a replacement rather than issuing a refund. As I stated previously, our reason as a company for choosing our current policy is to help contain costs. If you think that's insufficient justification, that's your right. I'm not here to debate it.

 

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.

 

RMA, I feel your frustration. I'd rather spend my money with someone who treats customers as people. I believe that Conan will do that in the future...but HE does not set the policy now.

 

:shrug:

 

Conan is the only representation of Lonestar we have on the boards, and Conan has taken it upon himself to be "the voice of Lonestar" here. In fact, Conan took it upon himself to "out" the situation.

 

I don't believe I've given the impression that Conan sets policy. I'm simply relaying the details of my experience.

 

If anyone has gotten the impression that I'm dumping on CONAN...you'd be wrong. I'm dumping on LONESTAR. Conan just happens to present himself as "the face" of Lonestar, here.

 

Like Calling "Steve" at AT&T. I'm not mad at STEVE, I'm mad at AT&T, but STEVE is the interface I have.

 

I'm sure Conan, the person, is just fine, and anyone thinking that I have been going after him personally, that would be an erroneous conclusion.

[seanfingh]

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.

 

 

Not true. He had to pay shipping for a book that should have gotten to him in the first transaction. He got his money back for the first payment. Then he bought it again and had to eat the double shipping. RIF.

[skypinkblu]

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?

 

Sometimes the person buying a lower price book, DOES (or can) shop at Tiffany's,they are just trying out the venue.

 

It's not about elitism, it's about networking. The impression I got was Conan is really good at getting along with people, his father, not so much. However in this case, it's obviously a well thought out, very controlled, well oiled machine, not your friendly neighborhood comic book dealer.

 

As someone mentioned, there have been tens of thousands of positive feedbacks on eBay, a few negatives are quickly swallowed. There is a definite business model here, money is being made in mass, so a small percentage of disgruntled customers does not affect it too much. MOST of them, would not start internet threads, so making them unhappy, does not matter, they will just fade away, their business model does not take extremely verbal people like RMA into consideration.

 

I'm actually glad he started the thread,I'm wondering if I can get him to do something about all the overseas call centers next;)

[Jeffro.]

I'm sure Conan, the person, is just fine, and anyone thinking that I have been going after him personally, that would be an erroneous conclusion.

 

You go after everybody personally, don't you know that?

 

For me, I'm having a devil of a time not taking someone in this thread off ignore. It's getting harder and harder to resist.

[Foolkiller]

This seems so simple:

 

1) RMA should have gotten the right book the first time

 

2) RMA shouldn't have had to pay shipping twice.

 

3) LoneStar is shooting themselves in the foot to make a point.

 

4) RMA is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

At the end of the day, the reality is, most people wouldn't make a huge deal out of this issue and go on and on and on about this. But, the reality is, RMA isn't wrong here.

 

LoneStar is in the wrong here and frankly, and, as comix4fun pointed out, handling things pretty stupidly with poor PR 101.

 

I am no champion of RMA nor his long winded blatherings, but if you look at it objectively, he's in the right here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hi guys, one last post before bed.

 

Regarding the text I added to our eBay listing, my intention was to insure that future customers will be as informed as possible about our policies before ordering. I mentioned it in this thread as an aside to point out something I was clarifying for future customers, not as anything that had retroactive bearing on RMA's issue.

 

The text of our return policy is relevant. The return policy says:

 

Any item may be returned if damaged, incorrectly graded, or the wrong item was sent. Return authorization is required, and a return must be requested within 14 days of delivery. We may be reached at (817) 860-7827 (M-F 9AM-5PM CST) or by messaging us through eBay (eBay no longer allows sellers to include their email address in item listings). We'll issue a full refund plus compensation for basic ground shipping costs for your return. Unauthorized returns will not be compensated for shipping. CGC graded comics are not returnable.

 

In RMA's case, we did what our return policy says we do in the event that a wrong item is sent: we issued a full refund. I believe the only disagreement is that RMA feels the appropriate resolution is for us to send a replacement rather than issuing a refund. As I stated previously, our reason as a company for choosing our current policy is to help contain costs. If you think that's insufficient justification, that's your right. I'm not here to debate it..

 

You're still missing the point.

 

Your policy is in direct contradiction with eBay policy, and when you list on eBay, their policy trumps yours. No one is allowed to sell items on eBay unless the item is available, and unless there is a situation beyond your control, you are REQUIRED, as part of the eBay User Agreement, which Lonestar agreed to abide by upon creating on eBay account, to deliver that item.

 

Bababonehead's "opinion" notwithstanding, when the item is sitting in your inventory and was subsequently sent out to me, that is the very DEFINITION of "in your control."

 

This is inescapable, regardless of how Lonestar feels about it.

[icefires]

This seems so simple:

 

1) RMA should have gotten the right book the first time

 

2) RMA shouldn't have had to pay shipping twice.

 

3) LoneStar is shooting themselves in the foot to make a point.

 

4) RMA is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

At the end of the day, the reality is, most people wouldn't make a huge deal out of this issue and go on and on and on about this. But, the reality is, RMA isn't wrong here.

 

LoneStar is in the wrong here and frankly, and, as comix4fun pointed out, handling things pretty stupidly with poor PR 101.

 

I am no champion of RMA nor his long winded blatherings, but if you look at it objectively, he's in the right here.

 

+1 (thumbs u

[mikenyc]

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.

 

 

Not true. He had to pay shipping for a book that should have gotten to him in the first transaction. He got his money back for the first payment. Then he bought it again and had to eat the double shipping. RIF.

 

That was self imposed. He made the decision to order the book, with absolutely no assurance that MCS would pay for shipping.

[miraclemet]

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

 

 

I always assumed you would have those numbers reversed... but I guess you make up in volume?

[mikenyc]

I'm sure Conan, the person, is just fine, and anyone thinking that I have been going after him personally, that would be an erroneous conclusion.

 

You go after everybody personally, don't you know that?

 

For me, I'm having a devil of a time not taking someone in this thread off ignore. It's getting harder and harder to resist.

 

[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?

 

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.

 

I wasn't dismissing anything you have said previously. I was just waiting for a simple yes or no answer to my question first which you haven't really answered. I'll ask the same question again. After sending me the wrong book, would you send me the correct book at your expense? Yes or no?

[RockMyAmadeus]

This seems so simple:

 

1) RMA should have gotten the right book the first time

 

2) RMA shouldn't have had to pay shipping twice.

 

3) LoneStar is shooting themselves in the foot to make a point.

 

4) RMA is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

At the end of the day, the reality is, most people wouldn't make a huge deal out of this issue and go on and on and on about this. But, the reality is, RMA isn't wrong here.

 

LoneStar is in the wrong here and frankly, and, as comix4fun pointed out, handling things pretty stupidly with poor PR 101.

 

I am no champion of RMA nor his long winded blatherings, but if you look at it objectively, he's in the right here.

 

Gee. Thanks.

 

 

Correction, "counselor"...there is a far larger principle at work here. The details of this particular transaction are long settled.

 

[bababooey]

 

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

 

 

But then he found out that it wasn't just an error (book already sold, website not updated) where the book no longer was available for purchase. It was still available for purchase and MCS couldn't be bothered to go track it down and get it to him, as they should have.

Aggravating, annoying? Yes.

 

His discovery that the book was on hand took place after the transaction had been completed, sure they could have gone the extra mile for him sent it with no freight charge but they weren't technically wrong in following their policy.

 

Again, I think the 'customer relationship' is a two way street - sellers or buyers can be wrongheaded in their thinking - a buyer can choose to spend elsewhere, a seller needs to guard against being taken advantage of.

[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?

 

Sometimes the person buying a lower price book, DOES (or can) shop at Tiffany's,they are just trying out the venue.

 

It's not about elitism, it's about networking. The impression I got was Conan is really good at getting along with people, his father, not so much. However in this case, it's obviously a well thought out, very controlled, well oiled machine, not your friendly neighborhood comic book dealer.

 

As someone mentioned, there have been tens of thousands of positive feedbacks on eBay, a few negatives are quickly swallowed. There is a definite business model here, money is being made in mass, so a small percentage of disgruntled customers does not affect it too much. MOST of them, would not start internet threads, so making them unhappy, does not matter, they will just fade away, their business model does not take extremely verbal people like RMA into consideration.

 

I'm actually glad he started the thread,I'm wondering if I can get him to do something about all the overseas call centers next;)

 

You can't please everyone. They'll survive.

 

I'm sure they have a Tiffany's in Westchester.

[Dale Roberts]

isn't there another dead horse to start beating about now?

 

I hear there is this really fascinating thread about Frank Miller....

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

 

You are wrong.

 

My second purchase was a deliberate act by a frustrated customer to obtain what should have been sent in the first place.

 

And you are letting your PERSONAL opinion of me affect your reason.

 

You are now lying about me and and my motives because your bad logic was refuted.

 

This is called "bearing false witness", and it's one of the Big 10.

[DiceX]

Why does my burn when I urinate?

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

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

 

 

But then he found out that it wasn't just an error (book already sold, website not updated) where the book no longer was available for purchase. It was still available for purchase and MCS couldn't be bothered to go track it down and get it to him, as they should have.

Aggravating, annoying? Yes.

 

His discovery that the book was on hand took place after the transaction had been completed, sure they could have gone the extra mile for him sent it with no freight charge but they weren't technically wrong in following their policy.

 

Again, I think the 'customer relationship' is a two way street - sellers or buyers can be wrongheaded in their thinking - a buyer can choose to spend elsewhere, a seller needs to guard against being taken advantage of.

 

If this had been some crazy rare copper book that I had ordered, i would have felt exactly the same way, and I would have done whatever it took to get the book, including ordering it again.

 

As a business model, not being "technically wrong" is lame.