Music123.com -- No Longer a Mail Order Ric Dealer!
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
jeff_ulmer
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:00 am
- Contact:
-
firstbassman
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:00 am
I think some of you may be agreeing more than you think but are getting tangled up in semantics.
But as far as:
RE: RIC's responsibility is to its dealers.
Companies have more than one responsibility. They have a responsibility to its dealers, yes. But also to their customers. And to their employees. And so forth. So saying that the line ends HERE doesn’t really help solve this situation.
Let’s take Dean’s example of the ordered Chrysler minivan. Turns out I once did order a Chrysler vehicle through a dealer (but not a minivan). Guess what, a problem did develop between Chrysler and the dealer with me stuck in the middle. Who do you think I turned to to complain? Who was more likely to have the power and the good-customer-sense to rectify the situation? The local car dealer? Or the multi-national high-profile corporation with the product name welded onto the side? Take a wild guess. Darn right, I went straight to Chrysler and got the problem solved.
I’m basically on Jeff’s side here. The fact that a company sells its product THROUGH dealers is a legal technicality. The dealers are not playing the instruments. (Just like the fact that all those cars being driven around are not owned by dealerships …they’re owned by people.) RIC’s TRUE customers are the end-users.
Would there be logistical hurdles to overcome in rectifying “lost” orders? Absolutely. Maybe they can go to the head of the list somehow. Maybe another dealer can pick them up and give them a discount. Who knows. But believe it or not, these kind of solutions DO happen in other industries.
But as far as:
RE: RIC's responsibility is to its dealers.
Companies have more than one responsibility. They have a responsibility to its dealers, yes. But also to their customers. And to their employees. And so forth. So saying that the line ends HERE doesn’t really help solve this situation.
Let’s take Dean’s example of the ordered Chrysler minivan. Turns out I once did order a Chrysler vehicle through a dealer (but not a minivan). Guess what, a problem did develop between Chrysler and the dealer with me stuck in the middle. Who do you think I turned to to complain? Who was more likely to have the power and the good-customer-sense to rectify the situation? The local car dealer? Or the multi-national high-profile corporation with the product name welded onto the side? Take a wild guess. Darn right, I went straight to Chrysler and got the problem solved.
I’m basically on Jeff’s side here. The fact that a company sells its product THROUGH dealers is a legal technicality. The dealers are not playing the instruments. (Just like the fact that all those cars being driven around are not owned by dealerships …they’re owned by people.) RIC’s TRUE customers are the end-users.
Would there be logistical hurdles to overcome in rectifying “lost” orders? Absolutely. Maybe they can go to the head of the list somehow. Maybe another dealer can pick them up and give them a discount. Who knows. But believe it or not, these kind of solutions DO happen in other industries.
-
notviceversa
- RIC
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:06 am
-
dragon1952
- New member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:29 am
LOL! Very appropriate.
To further muddle this up, I can see both sides in a way. I tend to agree with Mark's last assessment. If you look at it that way, Ric gave the stamp of approval to a certain distributor which, in turn, gives the customer a warm and cozy feeling that he's going through an authorized distributor (vs the many other ways of acquiring a Ric), then Ric drops the distributor and the customer loses his order. Maybe Ric should shoulder some of the blame, i.e. 'whoops....we screwed up on that one and maybe shouldn't have authorized that distributor hence giving all those poor customers a false sense of security in trusting our judgement. Let's see if we can help out in some way and try to maintain future customer trust and relations'.
The reverse is to drop the distributor, toss out all the pending orders and let the customer find out on his own, maybe weeks or months later that he isn't getting the Ric he's been waiting for with great anticipation and glee. Now please tell me, whether you feel it's justified or not, who is the customer going to be mad at? Both Ric and the customer end up losing in the end. Maybe they lose a loyal customer and maybe that customer convinces others not to do business with Ric, right or wrong, justified or not. Most business's will do pratically anything to prevent losing current and future customers.
To further muddle this up, I can see both sides in a way. I tend to agree with Mark's last assessment. If you look at it that way, Ric gave the stamp of approval to a certain distributor which, in turn, gives the customer a warm and cozy feeling that he's going through an authorized distributor (vs the many other ways of acquiring a Ric), then Ric drops the distributor and the customer loses his order. Maybe Ric should shoulder some of the blame, i.e. 'whoops....we screwed up on that one and maybe shouldn't have authorized that distributor hence giving all those poor customers a false sense of security in trusting our judgement. Let's see if we can help out in some way and try to maintain future customer trust and relations'.
The reverse is to drop the distributor, toss out all the pending orders and let the customer find out on his own, maybe weeks or months later that he isn't getting the Ric he's been waiting for with great anticipation and glee. Now please tell me, whether you feel it's justified or not, who is the customer going to be mad at? Both Ric and the customer end up losing in the end. Maybe they lose a loyal customer and maybe that customer convinces others not to do business with Ric, right or wrong, justified or not. Most business's will do pratically anything to prevent losing current and future customers.
-
icelandair
- New member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 6:59 am
As closure: this arrived unsolicited today from the dealer today via email...
Dear Customer,
We regretfully inform you that we must cancel your outstanding order for the Rickenbacker guitar.
Effective immediately, we will no longer be carrying Rickenbacker products.
We sincerely apologize for the cancellation. To help compensate in a small way for your inconvenience, we would like to offer you a $100.00 discount off any major brand of guitar that we carry that has a retail of $1500.00 or more.
We sincerely hope that you will accept our apology and take advantage of our discount. If you prefer we also can make arrangements to refer you to another dealer that exclusively carries Rickenbacker.
Please contact our Customer Service staff for assistance.
Sincerely,
Customer Service
.
.
.
Dear Customer,
We regretfully inform you that we must cancel your outstanding order for the Rickenbacker guitar.
Effective immediately, we will no longer be carrying Rickenbacker products.
We sincerely apologize for the cancellation. To help compensate in a small way for your inconvenience, we would like to offer you a $100.00 discount off any major brand of guitar that we carry that has a retail of $1500.00 or more.
We sincerely hope that you will accept our apology and take advantage of our discount. If you prefer we also can make arrangements to refer you to another dealer that exclusively carries Rickenbacker.
Please contact our Customer Service staff for assistance.
Sincerely,
Customer Service
.
.
.
-
dragon1952
- New member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:29 am