Well I can state that I will not be purchasing from B&H again where I otherwise would have.
I have nothing personal against Henry. I don't know him. I agree totally with Stan and Anthony who have reiterated a point I made earlier and then expounded with logical reasoning. In short, this was an issue of choosing profit (or loss of profit) over the customer and their satisfaction. B&H would not have suffered huge losses causing irrepairable harm and I believe the Equitable Doctrine of Unilateral Mistake is being grossly misapplied and misused, if that's the rationale behind not honoring the contract. In fact I think they would have come out ahead in the long run by eating the cost of the goods, the desired profit margin and the shipping, in effect purchasing customer goodwill, loyalty, and perception. Or if they simply viewed that bargain sale as a "loss leader" instead of a "loss". If B&H can't see the logic in this reasoning, or if they set forth a policy and blindly stick to it on every occasion, then they are a stupid and foolish corporate entity, and are likely losing current and future business that far offsets any short term savings on a transactional basis. Even as a single independent IT Consultant I sometimes give away hours of service here and there. Maybe I had trouble figuring something out or possibly I had to ramp up learning a new tool and the job took me longer than I anticipated. Because I realize that in the business world perception is at least 50% of reality, I eat those hours, that profit, in order to ensure my client has a positive view of me and my services. What I lose amounts to a lot more than $250, but what I gain exceeds even that. Tom C. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:06 AM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Anthony Farr wrote: > >> After ploughing through this thread I'm drawn to one recurring >> reference, which is to "unprofitable customers". Forgive me for >> asking, but doesn't the store and not the customer decide what deals >> will be offered for sale? In that context, then it's the store's >> responsibility/fault if they offer a deal that doesn't turn a profit. >> Also in that context, it's totally out of line for the store to turn >> around and blame the customer for those losses, the deals didn't have >> to be offered in the first place. >> >> Now, we all know about loss leaders, don't we? The store offers a >> doorbuster price usually at a loss, but hopes to turn it into a profit >> by upsizing the customer before they reach the checkout. Then, is a >> customer who hops from one store to another and buys only the loss >> leader but never the upsize a bad customer? No answer is needed for >> two reasons. One is that the store offered the deal, it's as simple >> as that. The second is that there's no workable way to filter out or >> discriminate against a customer because of how many items you ~think~ >> they'll put in their cart. If the business model for loss-leaders >> isn't working for a store, then they need to remedy it, not demonize >> customers who accept the offers. >> >> In essence - an unprofitable transaction is the result of the business >> practice that led up to it, not the customer who entered into it. >> >> Finally, a question for Henry Posner. If you could replay this event >> that has caused so much grief, would you once again stand by your >> legal/moral position for the sake of $250, or would you let it slide, >> let the customer have the benefit-of-the-doubt (even though you >> believe he is wrong), and circumvent the ill-will and misunderstanding >> that it has spawned? > > I'm not Henry and certainly can't speak for B&H. But after many years of > dealing with them, I would guess the answer would be a firm "no." They'll > stick by their decision. And that's what I like about them. They have > specific policies that are set forth in writing, and you can depend on them > following them. I've never known them to deviate from the course that they've > set. Most often, that works to the consumer's advantage. > > I also doubt that this event "has caused so much grief" in the overall scheme > of things. Hand wringing and name calling here? Sure, but that's meaningless. > Perhaps another tempestuous discussion or two on photo lists? Certainly not a > big deal given the scope of B&H's business. > > I think we should feel honored that Henry felt we deserved a reply. I'm only > sorry that he was not treated with the respect to which any human being is > entitled. > > Paul > > >> >> What does advertising cost these days, anyway? More than $250? >> (Rhetorical questions). >> >> regards, Anthony >> >> "Of what use is lens and light >> to those who lack in mind and sight" >> (Anon) >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
