American Muscle, the mustang authority
12/23/10, 02:25 PM
#41
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've mentioned several times that these are cheap, crappy made wheels, that the customer should take that into consideration when buying, and that AM is not responsible because all they do is sell them, not make them.
I see it differently. AM is supposed to be the "Mustang Authority" and the best source for Mustang parts. If you are putting yourself out there like that, then a company that size should do more to make sure that what they are selling fits that moniker because the products you sell are a direct reflection of you as a company.
By carrying that product, you are endorsing it. If it is a cheap crappy product, then it makes it look like you are a cheap crappy company to associate yourself with and distribute that product.
That being said, I personally would have stuck the wheel on there to begin with. But only because I have learned from decades of experience that my luck sucks, and that if there is one piece out of 10,000 made that is faulty, I'll be the one to end up getting it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "That's the first one we've ever seen do that, and we've been selling them for 20 years". **** the bad luck.
I see it differently. AM is supposed to be the "Mustang Authority" and the best source for Mustang parts. If you are putting yourself out there like that, then a company that size should do more to make sure that what they are selling fits that moniker because the products you sell are a direct reflection of you as a company.
By carrying that product, you are endorsing it. If it is a cheap crappy product, then it makes it look like you are a cheap crappy company to associate yourself with and distribute that product.
That being said, I personally would have stuck the wheel on there to begin with. But only because I have learned from decades of experience that my luck sucks, and that if there is one piece out of 10,000 made that is faulty, I'll be the one to end up getting it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "That's the first one we've ever seen do that, and we've been selling them for 20 years". **** the bad luck.
But it sounds like AM refunded in full, including shipping the amount for the wheels. This whole thing is centered over a claim for mounting and balancing expenses. I still don't believe this is AM's obligation to cover. I agree that it would certainly be nice for them and considering the amount of negative publicity one thread can cause, probably worth it to them.
But that's also why I'm adamant about the situation. The company did step-up and back their product by refunding all of the expenses of shipping and the product itself. They're not required to cover the mounting and balancing expenses, but they'll probably end up doing it simply because of this thread.
While word of mouth is a powerful tool for good, it's also a powerful tool for bad. Because as it appears here nearly everyone is overlooking the fact that AM DID refund the customer in full for the product they sell. Everybody instead is focusing solely on the smallest part of that transaction that the purchaser doesn't agree with. Yet the purchaser himself has not acknowledged even in passing that he maybe should have checked.
It's also hear-say about his treatment. Because nobody has seen the e-mails to and from, or listened to the phone conversations between the parties.
We're all so quick to judge (I'm as much to blame as anybody) that we don't take an honest look at all the facts.
12/23/10, 02:32 PM
#42
My name is Jason Mounce, google me a find out what I do. You may consider adding guitar to the search as it makes the results a little easier to find. My field is not car related at all.
And I think they've done good by you. They obviously have a no return policy on mounted wheels, however they gave you a full refund of the wheels you did purchase, as they should have.
I don't believe it's unfair to expect what you've already received.
And I think they've done good by you. They obviously have a no return policy on mounted wheels, however they gave you a full refund of the wheels you did purchase, as they should have.
I don't believe it's unfair to expect what you've already received.
That is not the case here. AM stated that the wheels will "perfectly fit," but they don't. The customer incurred costs to mount wheels that, according to AM, should fit. If AM has a disclaimer stating that, regardless of the company's claim, the customer should test fit the wheels prior to mounting as a precaution, it would be a whole different story.
jlmounce, I don't know how to say this without sounding like an insult, and I apologize, but you don't know what you are talking about. Within the strict context of business law and consumer rights, the customer in this case has a legitimate claim. If the OP wants to fight this, he WILL win. Now the matter is whether it would be worth it to fight it. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but in the context of a legal environment, AM is at fault.
As for due diligence, it would be relevant had AM not state specifically that the wheels will "perfectly fit." What I mean is, if AM did not state such a claim on its website and the OP mounted the wheels first without prior test fitting, the expenses incurred would be solely the OP's responsibility as he failed to exercise due diligence.
I recently graduated with a marketing major with a business law minor. If AM had higher customer responsiveness and reimbursed the OP's $170 in a timely manner, this thread might have been a positive generator of word-of-mouth, as opposed to bad PR. And, seriously, even if the customer was wrong, which he isn't, wouldn't a measly $170 (relative to AM's likely revenue) worth it simply to avoid something like this thread?
------
http://www.americanmuscle.com/2010-m....html#shop-by1
Does your new 2010+ Ford Mustang still have the ugly stock rims? Then upgrade them today! We have compiled a catalog of Mustang wheels that will perfectly fit your newly redesigned 2010+ V6, GT, or Shelby GT500 Mustang, from Bullitt to FR500 styles! Whether you are traveling at high speeds or just cruising down main street, have your Mustang looking its best.
Last edited by JimmyM; 12/23/10 at 02:36 PM.
12/23/10, 02:54 PM
#43
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: August 4, 2006
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should also note that I've stated several times that AM should have offered the full refund for the wheels, which they have. I would be agreeing with everybody here if the case was over the refund of the wheels themselves. I'd be crying fowl too at that point.
But it sounds like AM refunded in full, including shipping the amount for the wheels. This whole thing is centered over a claim for mounting and balancing expenses. I still don't believe this is AM's obligation to cover. I agree that it would certainly be nice for them and considering the amount of negative publicity one thread can cause, probably worth it to them.
But that's also why I'm adamant about the situation. The company did step-up and back their product by refunding all of the expenses of shipping and the product itself. They're not required to cover the mounting and balancing expenses, but they'll probably end up doing it simply because of this thread.
While word of mouth is a powerful tool for good, it's also a powerful tool for bad. Because as it appears here nearly everyone is overlooking the fact that AM DID refund the customer in full for the product they sell. Everybody instead is focusing solely on the smallest part of that transaction that the purchaser doesn't agree with. Yet the purchaser himself has not acknowledged even in passing that he maybe should have checked.
It's also hear-say about his treatment. Because nobody has seen the e-mails to and from, or listened to the phone conversations between the parties.
We're all so quick to judge (I'm as much to blame as anybody) that we don't take an honest look at all the facts.
But it sounds like AM refunded in full, including shipping the amount for the wheels. This whole thing is centered over a claim for mounting and balancing expenses. I still don't believe this is AM's obligation to cover. I agree that it would certainly be nice for them and considering the amount of negative publicity one thread can cause, probably worth it to them.
But that's also why I'm adamant about the situation. The company did step-up and back their product by refunding all of the expenses of shipping and the product itself. They're not required to cover the mounting and balancing expenses, but they'll probably end up doing it simply because of this thread.
While word of mouth is a powerful tool for good, it's also a powerful tool for bad. Because as it appears here nearly everyone is overlooking the fact that AM DID refund the customer in full for the product they sell. Everybody instead is focusing solely on the smallest part of that transaction that the purchaser doesn't agree with. Yet the purchaser himself has not acknowledged even in passing that he maybe should have checked.
It's also hear-say about his treatment. Because nobody has seen the e-mails to and from, or listened to the phone conversations between the parties.
We're all so quick to judge (I'm as much to blame as anybody) that we don't take an honest look at all the facts.
And no I don't think I should have checked. Will I in the future? I am sure I will, but that has no barring on this instance. It is stated NOWHERE on the website the wheels should be test fitted before mounting because they might not fit. If it where and I just didn't do it then I would agree with you also. But it is not.
The rims cost ~$800 I would call $170 minor. But hey thats just me.
And I gave them every opportunity to handle this behind closed doors. I went out of my way to do so.
They choose to ignore me.
12/23/10, 03:00 PM
#44
GT Member
Join Date: July 11, 2010
Location: Ferndale, WA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the business world, "the customer is always right." How much AM future sales $ has been lost now because of bad rep? Probably a lot more than $170. Sometimes ya just gotta "bite the bullet."
The no return policy, regarding mounted wheels, is to limit customers who purchased a set of wheels, mounted them, put the wheels on the car, then decided that they didn't like the wheels, and want a refund or exchange.
That is not the case here. AM stated that the wheels will "perfectly fit," but they don't. The customer incurred costs to mount wheels that, according to AM, should fit. If AM has a disclaimer stating that, regardless of the company's claim, the customer should test fit the wheels prior to mounting as a precaution, it would be a whole different story.
jlmounce, I don't know how to say this without sounding like an insult, and I apologize, but you don't know what you are talking about. Within the strict context of business law and consumer rights, the customer in this case has a legitimate claim. If the OP wants to fight this, he WILL win. Now the matter is whether it would be worth it to fight it. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but in the context of a legal environment, AM is at fault.
As for due diligence, it would be relevant had AM not state specifically that the wheels will "perfectly fit." What I mean is, if AM did not state such a claim on its website and the OP mounted the wheels first without prior test fitting, the expenses incurred would be solely the OP's responsibility as he failed to exercise due diligence.
I recently graduated with a marketing major with a business law minor. If AM had higher customer responsiveness and reimbursed the OP's $170 in a timely manner, this thread might have been a positive generator of word-of-mouth, as opposed to bad PR. And, seriously, even if the customer was wrong, which he isn't, wouldn't a measly $170 (relative to AM's likely revenue) worth it simply to avoid something like this thread?
------
http://www.americanmuscle.com/2010-m....html#shop-by1
That is not the case here. AM stated that the wheels will "perfectly fit," but they don't. The customer incurred costs to mount wheels that, according to AM, should fit. If AM has a disclaimer stating that, regardless of the company's claim, the customer should test fit the wheels prior to mounting as a precaution, it would be a whole different story.
jlmounce, I don't know how to say this without sounding like an insult, and I apologize, but you don't know what you are talking about. Within the strict context of business law and consumer rights, the customer in this case has a legitimate claim. If the OP wants to fight this, he WILL win. Now the matter is whether it would be worth it to fight it. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but in the context of a legal environment, AM is at fault.
As for due diligence, it would be relevant had AM not state specifically that the wheels will "perfectly fit." What I mean is, if AM did not state such a claim on its website and the OP mounted the wheels first without prior test fitting, the expenses incurred would be solely the OP's responsibility as he failed to exercise due diligence.
I recently graduated with a marketing major with a business law minor. If AM had higher customer responsiveness and reimbursed the OP's $170 in a timely manner, this thread might have been a positive generator of word-of-mouth, as opposed to bad PR. And, seriously, even if the customer was wrong, which he isn't, wouldn't a measly $170 (relative to AM's likely revenue) worth it simply to avoid something like this thread?
------
http://www.americanmuscle.com/2010-m....html#shop-by1
12/23/10, 03:10 PM
#45
I may be interpreting it wrong, but I get the sense that you are a lot like I would be in the situation. Its not as much the $170 that you are angry about, as it is the fact that you have been ignored.
12/23/10, 03:26 PM
#46
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: August 4, 2006
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go make a post asking about one of there tunes and watch how fast you get a response.
Its not like the $170 is not important as it is a good chunk of change, but it is certainly not life changing. I own a small business and if that is how I treated my customers I would not be in business for very long.
Last edited by shotzy; 12/23/10 at 03:55 PM.
12/23/10, 04:01 PM
#47
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 2, 2010
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, and I'm sure probably noone cares, this thread swayed me to do business elsewhere. I was really wanting to order my CDC chin spoiler from AM. But if this treatment is a remote possibility(which looks like it could be), I think I would rather not.. And as far as the OP goes, I hear ya on the money thing. 170 really ain't really chet, I mean it's something, but nowadays not really that much, it's the principal of the situation...
12/23/10, 04:03 PM
#48
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 27, 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
9 Posts
Well... look at all the "internet lawyers". 
I ran this by our in-house attorney and he pointed out that there is no express or implied warranty covering consequential damages except in a small handful of states. The cost of the wheels and shipping are direct damages but the mounting is consequential so, under contract law, AM has no legal obligation to cover it (in most states).
That's not to say that it might not go differently in court. Many cases end up being decided on other factors besides strict contract law. That's why settlements are made all the time - it's cheaper than the risks of court.
That's also not to say that there isn't a big difference between legal requirements and customer service. Certainly I think that ignoring the customer is possibly the worst thing a business can do.
I ran this by our in-house attorney and he pointed out that there is no express or implied warranty covering consequential damages except in a small handful of states. The cost of the wheels and shipping are direct damages but the mounting is consequential so, under contract law, AM has no legal obligation to cover it (in most states).
That's not to say that it might not go differently in court. Many cases end up being decided on other factors besides strict contract law. That's why settlements are made all the time - it's cheaper than the risks of court.
That's also not to say that there isn't a big difference between legal requirements and customer service. Certainly I think that ignoring the customer is possibly the worst thing a business can do.
Last edited by WhiteBird00; 12/23/10 at 04:04 PM.
12/23/10, 04:34 PM
#49
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 19, 2009
Location: Greenfield, In
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent point. I've made several purchases from AM, & everything I've bought has worked fine. This thread does give me something to think about. I'd sure like to see them at least talk to the OP, as opposed to ignoring him.
12/23/10, 05:34 PM
#51
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 5, 2008
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always like to take an issue to the extremes to see how people respond if it's not a 'minor' issue.
What if the wheels cost $170 total, and the OP's install of the tires cost, say, the $800 cost of the wheels (so reverse the prices). Is AM still responsible for reimbursing an $800 install cost on a admittedly improperly sized but cheap item? What if it's a set of gears? Less than $200, you take it somewhere to be installed, and $1000 later (I know, it wouldn't be that much) find out they don't fit the way you want, without perhaps some minor, $10 modifications (like say lightly grinding down the offending caliper). Is the selling company then responsible for your install cost?
So for those business owners that say yes, are you prepared to eat the install cost of an item that's worth a tenth of that cost? An item you have a potential profit or net income of less than say $10?
If you're not willing to eat $800 or $1000 install cost on a measly $150 part, for which you might make $10 ultimately (meaning you'll need to sell another 100 of them to break even), then why are you willing to eat any amount for something you did not perform?
Public opinion/relations is the only reason outside of any moral/ethical obligation, and if AM reasonably thinks they'll LOSE $170 from this public forum's bad publicity on this item, that's the only reason to cut a check for that. But that means $170 of profit, not of item costs, so that might mean several hundred customer orders would have to be affected. If that's their business decision and they're large enough to absorb it, then that's their choice. They have no legal obligation, just a moral/ethical obligation. Fact is most people shop purely on price, and customer service or public opinion has no influence. My guess is there's enough people out there to support AM should the few that see this thread and care take their business elsewhere. Sucks, but that's the business world (remember Ed Norton in Fight Club and his job description, if such and such doesn't add up, we don't recall the car).
Just my 2 cents
What if the wheels cost $170 total, and the OP's install of the tires cost, say, the $800 cost of the wheels (so reverse the prices). Is AM still responsible for reimbursing an $800 install cost on a admittedly improperly sized but cheap item? What if it's a set of gears? Less than $200, you take it somewhere to be installed, and $1000 later (I know, it wouldn't be that much) find out they don't fit the way you want, without perhaps some minor, $10 modifications (like say lightly grinding down the offending caliper). Is the selling company then responsible for your install cost?
So for those business owners that say yes, are you prepared to eat the install cost of an item that's worth a tenth of that cost? An item you have a potential profit or net income of less than say $10?
If you're not willing to eat $800 or $1000 install cost on a measly $150 part, for which you might make $10 ultimately (meaning you'll need to sell another 100 of them to break even), then why are you willing to eat any amount for something you did not perform?
Public opinion/relations is the only reason outside of any moral/ethical obligation, and if AM reasonably thinks they'll LOSE $170 from this public forum's bad publicity on this item, that's the only reason to cut a check for that. But that means $170 of profit, not of item costs, so that might mean several hundred customer orders would have to be affected. If that's their business decision and they're large enough to absorb it, then that's their choice. They have no legal obligation, just a moral/ethical obligation. Fact is most people shop purely on price, and customer service or public opinion has no influence. My guess is there's enough people out there to support AM should the few that see this thread and care take their business elsewhere. Sucks, but that's the business world (remember Ed Norton in Fight Club and his job description, if such and such doesn't add up, we don't recall the car).
Just my 2 cents
Last edited by CO_VaporGT_09; 12/23/10 at 05:37 PM.
12/23/10, 05:40 PM
#52
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 7, 2010
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's hardly fair to say. I've purchased a plethora of products from AM (and Steeda) in the past, and will continue to, regardless of this thread. At this exact moment, with it being so near the holiday's, I imagine this specific situation is just being overlooked.
As has been said several times, AM has legally fulfilled their end of the deal. If they choose to refund his mounting/balancing fees - and I imagine they will because AM is known for going above and beyond for great customer service - that will just be further proof of their excellent customer service. If they don't, it's really irrelevant to anyone other than the OP.
AM hasn't really done anything to merit someone taking their business elsewhere at this point.They refunded the guy and even paid to have the rims shipped back, which is more than many other vendors would do if the purchaser put a scratch on the rim.
Last edited by KonaBlue5.0; 12/23/10 at 05:42 PM.
12/23/10, 05:47 PM
#53
Spam Connoisseur
I got هَبوبed
I got هَبوبed
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Sun City AZ
Posts: 9,705
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
not knowing a wheel doesnt fit is not some small thing like selling a shift **** with different threads. If you sell things and tell people they fit and it doesnt fit you should lose some credibility.
why isnt fair to say go to a vendor that doesnt have such problems?
why isnt fair to say go to a vendor that doesnt have such problems?
12/23/10, 05:51 PM
#54
GT Member
Join Date: July 10, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always like to take an issue to the extremes to see how people respond if it's not a 'minor' issue.
What if the wheels cost $170 total, and the OP's install of the tires cost, say, the $800 cost of the wheels (so reverse the prices). Is AM still responsible for reimbursing an $800 install cost on a admittedly improperly sized but cheap item? What if it's a set of gears? Less than $200, you take it somewhere to be installed, and $1000 later (I know, it wouldn't be that much) find out they don't fit the way you want, without perhaps some minor, $10 modifications (like say lightly grinding down the offending caliper). Is the selling company then responsible for your install cost?
So for those business owners that say yes, are you prepared to eat the install cost of an item that's worth a tenth of that cost? An item you have a potential profit or net income of less than say $10?
If you're not willing to eat $800 or $1000 install cost on a measly $150 part, for which you might make $10 ultimately (meaning you'll need to sell another 100 of them to break even), then why are you willing to eat any amount for something you did not perform?
Public opinion/relations is the only reason outside of any moral/ethical obligation, and if AM reasonably thinks they'll LOSE $170 from this public forum's bad publicity on this item, that's the only reason to cut a check for that. But that means $170 of profit, not of item costs, so that might mean several hundred customer orders would have to be affected. If that's their business decision and they're large enough to absorb it, then that's their choice. They have no legal obligation, just a moral/ethical obligation. Fact is most people shop purely on price, and customer service or public opinion has no influence. My guess is there's enough people out there to support AM should the few that see this thread and care take their business elsewhere. Sucks, but that's the business world (remember Ed Norton in Fight Club and his job description, if such and such doesn't add up, we don't recall the car).
Just my 2 cents
What if the wheels cost $170 total, and the OP's install of the tires cost, say, the $800 cost of the wheels (so reverse the prices). Is AM still responsible for reimbursing an $800 install cost on a admittedly improperly sized but cheap item? What if it's a set of gears? Less than $200, you take it somewhere to be installed, and $1000 later (I know, it wouldn't be that much) find out they don't fit the way you want, without perhaps some minor, $10 modifications (like say lightly grinding down the offending caliper). Is the selling company then responsible for your install cost?
So for those business owners that say yes, are you prepared to eat the install cost of an item that's worth a tenth of that cost? An item you have a potential profit or net income of less than say $10?
If you're not willing to eat $800 or $1000 install cost on a measly $150 part, for which you might make $10 ultimately (meaning you'll need to sell another 100 of them to break even), then why are you willing to eat any amount for something you did not perform?
Public opinion/relations is the only reason outside of any moral/ethical obligation, and if AM reasonably thinks they'll LOSE $170 from this public forum's bad publicity on this item, that's the only reason to cut a check for that. But that means $170 of profit, not of item costs, so that might mean several hundred customer orders would have to be affected. If that's their business decision and they're large enough to absorb it, then that's their choice. They have no legal obligation, just a moral/ethical obligation. Fact is most people shop purely on price, and customer service or public opinion has no influence. My guess is there's enough people out there to support AM should the few that see this thread and care take their business elsewhere. Sucks, but that's the business world (remember Ed Norton in Fight Club and his job description, if such and such doesn't add up, we don't recall the car).
Just my 2 cents
I think this is why it falls into the case by case basis. I also think that luckily this would be a very rare scenario...you would surely figure out something does not fit well before that much labor is applied.
As a business owner, I can tell you my thoughts would be to work it out with the customer in a manner that tries to keep everyone happy. The lack of communication is the true problem here.
If I was AM, I would offer to sell him a set of wheels that would fit and discount $170 off the wheels if possible (provided enough profit in the wheels), or as has been said split the $170 with the customer.
12/23/10, 05:53 PM
#55
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 14, 2008
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well... look at all the "internet lawyers".
I ran this by our in-house attorney and he pointed out that there is no express or implied warranty covering consequential damages except in a small handful of states. The cost of the wheels and shipping are direct damages but the mounting is consequential so, under contract law, AM has no legal obligation to cover it (in most states).
That's not to say that it might not go differently in court. Many cases end up being decided on other factors besides strict contract law. That's why settlements are made all the time - it's cheaper than the risks of court.
That's also not to say that there isn't a big difference between legal requirements and customer service. Certainly I think that ignoring the customer is possibly the worst thing a business can do.
I ran this by our in-house attorney and he pointed out that there is no express or implied warranty covering consequential damages except in a small handful of states. The cost of the wheels and shipping are direct damages but the mounting is consequential so, under contract law, AM has no legal obligation to cover it (in most states).
That's not to say that it might not go differently in court. Many cases end up being decided on other factors besides strict contract law. That's why settlements are made all the time - it's cheaper than the risks of court.
That's also not to say that there isn't a big difference between legal requirements and customer service. Certainly I think that ignoring the customer is possibly the worst thing a business can do.
More to the point, no warranty is involved. A product was sold as being fit for a specific purpose and it clearly was not. If you were sold a wrench that did not fit the bolt it was suppose to is that ok with your inhouse lawyer? In what states exactly?
Last edited by falhulk; 12/23/10 at 05:56 PM.
12/23/10, 05:54 PM
#56
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a decent bit of comment on the boards which point to the calipers being a bit different on even standard brake 11 GT's.
This may expose an issue where an entire line of wheels may not fit when both the manufacturer and distributors aren't yet aware.
That's not to excuse a company from not knowing, as I stated ignorance is never an excuse.
However again, the items were returned and refunded and their legal obligation filled.
12/23/10, 07:03 PM
#57
Reading through this thread, there is some very good lessons here and for one, this is why I will never ever buy aftermarket wheels... We got a set from Discount on our F-150 and they are good looking but terrible. I have had to have them balanced more than 5X and by looking at the amount of weight on that wheel, its not round! UGH. I hope it gets worked out for you and I agree, ignoring you is the worst thing they can do...
12/23/10, 07:47 PM
#58
Cobra R Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Southeastern Virginia
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as someone holding an ASQ (quality) certification who in a previous career was a quality professional, I see this situation as exactly the kind of thing the quality gurus (Juran, Peters, etc) talk about when differentiating great companies from merely good ones. My point is this: This was a GOLDEN opportunity for AM to secure Shotzy's (and other TMS members') undying loyalty for a mere $150 (that's low-rent in the business world for positive goodwill), and all it would have required was a cooperative response, and maybe a small offering of sharing those ancillary sunk costs (maybe $50? $75?). Something to show they cared. But by THEIR LACK OF ANY RESPONSE TO SHOTZY'S REPEATED ATTEMPTS AT FOLLOWUP it's obvious now that they don't.
No, AM has no legal obligation to "care", and that's fine - and neither I nor Shotzy have any legal obligation to buy from them. On the other hand I will go out of my way to give my business to someone that I feel DOES care and that I feel I can trust and am willing to pay more for that peace of mind.
Off topic - I now know where to turn for free off-the-cuff legal advice! TMS > Legalzoom.
Last edited by Double-EDad; 12/23/10 at 07:48 PM.
12/23/10, 08:16 PM
#59
Legacy TMS Member
I think a lot of the people on this thread have gotten wrapped up in the legal obligation angle of AM in this case. To me that isn't the point. As already stated, I think it's clear AM probably met its minimum legal obligation in agreeing to reimburse shipping & wheels to return them.
But as someone holding an ASQ (quality) certification who in a previous career was a quality professional, I see this situation as exactly the kind of thing the quality gurus (Juran, Peters, etc) talk about when differentiating great companies from merely good ones. My point is this: This was a GOLDEN opportunity for AM to secure Shotzy's (and other TMS members') undying loyalty for a mere $150 (that's low-rent in the business world for positive goodwill), and all it would have required was a cooperative response, and maybe a small offering of sharing those ancillary sunk costs (maybe $50? $75?). Something to show they cared. But by THEIR LACK OF ANY RESPONSE TO SHOTZY'S REPEATED ATTEMPTS AT FOLLOWUP it's obvious now that they don't.
No, AM has no legal obligation to "care", and that's fine - and neither I nor Shotzy have any legal obligation to buy from them. On the other hand I will go out of my way to give my business to someone that I feel DOES care and that I feel I can trust and am willing to pay more for that peace of mind.
Off topic - I now know where to turn for free off-the-cuff legal advice! TMS > Legalzoom.
But as someone holding an ASQ (quality) certification who in a previous career was a quality professional, I see this situation as exactly the kind of thing the quality gurus (Juran, Peters, etc) talk about when differentiating great companies from merely good ones. My point is this: This was a GOLDEN opportunity for AM to secure Shotzy's (and other TMS members') undying loyalty for a mere $150 (that's low-rent in the business world for positive goodwill), and all it would have required was a cooperative response, and maybe a small offering of sharing those ancillary sunk costs (maybe $50? $75?). Something to show they cared. But by THEIR LACK OF ANY RESPONSE TO SHOTZY'S REPEATED ATTEMPTS AT FOLLOWUP it's obvious now that they don't.
No, AM has no legal obligation to "care", and that's fine - and neither I nor Shotzy have any legal obligation to buy from them. On the other hand I will go out of my way to give my business to someone that I feel DOES care and that I feel I can trust and am willing to pay more for that peace of mind.
Off topic - I now know where to turn for free off-the-cuff legal advice! TMS > Legalzoom.
This.
12/23/10, 09:00 PM
#60
To be honest, I think they might just be flooded with holiday activity.
Personally, my experiences with AM have been decent. I don't think a company that well known would purposely **** a customer off by completely ignoring all e-mails/PMs.
Personally, my experiences with AM have been decent. I don't think a company that well known would purposely **** a customer off by completely ignoring all e-mails/PMs.