|
death
Sep 15, 2003, 2:34 PM
Post #52 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 17
|
I'll have to agree with semorrison on this one. I only had one experience with K&R and it will be my last. Extremely slow shipping, overpriced (But hey thats my fault for buying), and they shipped a biner to me in a plain envelope! No bubble wrap or nothing. I paid $4 shipping to have a biner shipped to me in a freak'n envelope! Biners are tough, but why take chances? Seemed really unprofessional to me.
|
|
|
|
|
maria
Sep 15, 2003, 2:35 PM
Post #53 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: I could easily be wrong but, my sense is that it is more probable that knr made a mistake in processing the cancellation and the supposed reinstate phone call was outright manufactured by someone.
Yes, I find this more believable than K&R's scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Sep 15, 2003, 2:51 PM
Post #54 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: In reply to: I could easily be wrong but, my sense is that it is more probable that knr made a mistake in processing the cancellation and the supposed reinstate phone call was outright manufactured by someone. Yes, I find this more believable than K&R's scenario.
I guess we'll just have to contact Robert Stack at Unsolved Mysteries then.
|
|
|
|
|
maria
Sep 15, 2003, 2:54 PM
Post #55 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I could easily be wrong but, my sense is that it is more probable that knr made a mistake in processing the cancellation and the supposed reinstate phone call was outright manufactured by someone. Yes, I find this more believable than K&R's scenario. I guess we'll just have to contact Robert Stack at Unsolved Mysteries then. |
|
|
|
|
jabtocrag
Sep 15, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #56 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476
|
In reply to: I once saw a middle aged woman go into an outdoor store. Ask the manager to help her with boots. She tried on several pair and sizes, then when she decided which ones she liked, she asked the manager to write down the exact product number, and she left. No doubt, she went home, and gave her money to an online seller.
I absolutely agree that if you utilize the services of a reseller to help you decide on a product, then it would be the "right" thing to also purchase from that establishment, rather than try to save a few bucks elsewhere. However, this is not often the case in cyberspace...as many people do their research and look for the best prices with little or no human involvement from the possible companies..."windows" shopping :)
|
|
|
|
|
nopro
Sep 15, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #57 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 40
|
In reply to: In reply to: It's important for climbers to understand that the markup on climbing gear is pitiful. While on clothing, stores buy from the manufacturer and mark up 100% (meaning if the store buys it at $60, customers will buy it at $120), in climbing gear, a $60 item only sells for $100. That is, the cost on climbing gear is 40% off retail. From a retail perspective, that really sucks, especially since selling climbing gear is a time- and labor-intensive transaction. Wahhhh. You need to learn about other forms of business before you start looking for sympathy. I work in a service industry where a 10 percent profit margin is a GOOD year. I'm not going to feel sorry for any retail business. Outdoor gear shops INCLUDED.
Someone needs to learn the difference between stating the facts and looking for sympathy. Sounds like you might want to learn about other forms of business, yourself and focus on your own profit margin.
|
|
|
|
|
toonarmy
Sep 15, 2003, 6:24 PM
Post #58 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 133
|
In reply to: In reply to: I could easily be wrong but, my sense is that it is more probable that knr made a mistake in processing the cancellation and the supposed reinstate phone call was outright manufactured by someone. Yes, I find this more believable than K&R's scenario.
Of course, had you read a little more carefully, you would have realized that K&R had acknowledged that there may have been a miscommunication.
In reply to: . . . and we found that as the order was re-placed over the telephone it could have been a miscommunication.
At which point K&R said that it "would refund the full amount of the product and reimburse for shipping if he would include a receipt. [K&R] also specified shipping instructions, and stated that if they were not followed that we would only refund the amount that the package could have been shipped for if the instructions were followed."
I don't think you can say that either version is more credible. Rather, it sounds like a complete, albeit understandable, misunderstanding between the two parties. That being said, morrison appears to be a bit of an ass, especially since he turned a deaf ear to K&R's willingness to rectify the situation and seems to be completely unwilling to take any responsibility for the result he got. He sounds like the kind of person who yells at the flight attendant because the plane is delayed.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Sep 15, 2003, 6:42 PM
Post #59 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Of course, had you read a little more carefully, you would have realized that K&R had acknowledged that there may have been a miscommunication.
In reply to: . . . and we found that as the order was re-placed over the telephone it could have been a miscommunication.
I am sorry but if K&R recieved a phone call from someone wanting to reinstate an order and they procceeded to reinstate the wrong order they would probably know it because the third party would be wondering what happened to their order.
In reply to: I don't think you can say that either version is more credible. Rather, it sounds like a complete, albeit understandable, misunderstanding between the two parties.
If you assume that morrison did not make a call to re-instate the order it is not a "misunderstanding between the two parties" it would mean there was a third party involved. As I said, improbable.
|
|
|
|
|
toonarmy
Sep 15, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #60 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 133
|
In reply to: I am sorry but if K&R recieved a phone call from someone wanting to reinstate an order and they procceeded to reinstate the wrong order they would probably know it because the third party would be wondering what happened to their order.
But would they really be able to like up the two? I would assume that, in a mail order business, it's not uncommon for people to call and wonder what happened to their orders. It still sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation to me.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Sep 15, 2003, 7:21 PM
Post #61 of 61
(5133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
It seems like a more reasonable explanation is that the excuse came from an employee that screwed up and blamed it on an untraceable phone call.
It seems to me that in order to reinstate an order, you would verify the order number, the persons name and the contents of the order to prevent any mix ups.
Admittedly this is just speculation
|
|
|
|
|
|
