Reading mode: Light Dark

Warning about DigitalRev's unscrupulous practices

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
Marcus, so far you have summarized the situation very well and I couldn't have said it better myself.

People vote with their wallets and after having read all the particulars, this company ought to have had fessed up, admitted its mistake, apologized and ought to have had sold the item at the advertised price.

Without an value judgement, companies learn by their mistakes and in the end, nobody will suffer but the company, through its damaged reputation. Any complication will turn off customers, they need to realize this. The whole process of sale has to be as seamless and easy as going down to a local store and purchasing the item, even easier if possible.

I have a little list of companies I will never deal with and I just added the name of this company on my list.

You lost the loyalty of one customer and potential sales from many others. IMV, being a small business owner, I'd rather be poorer a few dollars than right.

Cheers.
 
Horshack said:
This isn't sour grapes for missing out on a sale or a vendor unable to deliver a product due to reasons beyond their control. This is about a vendor who is willing to be dishonest when it suits their purposes. If DigitalRev had simply told me they couldn't fulfill my order because of limited stock at the discounted price I would have been fine with that. This happens all the time in retailing and is no big deal. But instead DigitalRev chose to use a series of incredulous statements that would insult the intelligence of any semi-conscience consumer. I'll present the full correspondence and let everyone judge for themselves:

DigitalRev sent me the following email to notify me of the order cancellation. This appears to be a personalized, non-automated reply but I'll leave that for you to judge. Their words verbatim:
Horshack said:
We regret to inform you we have experienced a problem with our stock for the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 (Nikon) and with sourcing more of the item from our regular suppliers. Having tried to locate the item from alternative sources, unfortunately, there is no promising news as of this moment. As such, we must unfortunately cancel and refund your order.
Click to expand...
Let's give DigitalRev the benefit of the doubt and believe they couldn't secure future stock of a lens which has worldwide distribution, at the epicenter of worldwide distribution (Hong Kong). Stretching credulity maybe, but plausible. But then I go on their site an hour later and they show the lens in stock for immediate delivery at the non-sales price. So is this a lie or misunderstanding? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt again and say it's a misunderstanding.

After seeing the lens in-stock I emailed them back with the following:
Horshack said:
Earlier I sent an email via the support link on your site asking for my order to be reinstated and that I don't mind waiting for your inventory to be replenished. I just rechecked your site and it shows that the lens is in stock but not at the discounted price I was quoted in my order. Can you please reconcile the in-stock status on the site with your email below?
Click to expand...
To which they responded (verbatim):
Horshack said:
Unfortunately, once an order is closed we can not reopen it. Sorry for any inconvenience that we may have caused.
Click to expand...
To which I responded (verbatim):
Horshack said:
So if I'm to understand your correspondence correctly, you canceled my order for the Zeiss lens because you didn't have any in stock and had no vendor/supplier which could replenish your stock at a later date. On that same day I checked your website and it shows you in fact have the lens in stock at the non-discounted price and that it ships immediately. When I reported this inventory status back to you on the same day and asked for you to reinstate my order, you now reply that you can't reopen a closed order. I'm not sure what is customary for the photo/video vendors in Hong Kong but in America your actions so far constitute not only bad service but consumer fraud. I would like to request that you reconsider my request and please reinstate my order and fulfill your original commitment to supply me the Zeiss lens at the price you advertised and at the price I paid to you through the PayPal transaction on your site.
Click to expand...
To which they responded (verbatim):
Horshack said:
To confirm, we cancelled your order because we had a stock issue for the Carl Zeiss lens you ordered. Sorry for any inconvenience that we may have caused.
Click to expand...
I'll leave it to each forum participant to judge for themselves whether DigitalRev was forthright and honest here.
--
Kodak Instant Camera
Kyocera 1MP Camera phone (pre-paid phone plan)
http://horshack.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
being disappointed if you were ripped off or out of pocket because of this is one thing, but you can't accuse them of defrauding you. their explanation seems more than fair and reasonable to me, and from what you (and digital rev ) have stated, in no way have they left you out to dry.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dipak49ers/sets/
 
Bait and switch describes the practice of luring a customer in by advertising an item at an unprofitably low price, only then to state that it isn't available and offer them an alternative , more expensive product instead .

Kevin
 
Dear DPReview community,

I got a call from a member of my managing team this afternoon informing me that there is a discussion going on here initiated by a customer who got his clearance order cancelled. I was having a late lunch in a mall with my family, but after reading some of the posts here on my iPhone I had to leave for home where I could gather as much information as I could and type my response on a proper keyboard.

I have read every single one of your responses, including the ones posted by my team. I have some facts and some thoughts that I want to share with you. I don’t want to make a fuss, so only read ‘The Solution’ if you are not interested in the details. For those who want to know more, feel free to read on.

The Solution:

I have emailed Adam myself and informed him that we will be honoring the deal at the original sale price of US$509.95 plus shipping for goodwill. I apologized for the sub-standard communication he received when the order was cancelled, which I think contributed to the complication of a simple matter. I did point out that we do not believe that some of his comments were fair. I was thinking about calling him but its odd hours in the US. I did leave my office number with him in case he needs to reach me.

Some facts:

1) The particular lens was indeed offered and sold at half price before the stock went out. It was not a ‘bait’, and we didn’t do it to get traffic. We were simply clearing out overstocked (i.e. difficult to sell) items at loss. When we promoted the Sale outside our site, we emphasised the fact that these prices are valid while stocks last.

2) The lens was sold out at the time Adam placed his order (10:26AM GMT+8, 27th December 2010), and it has been out of stock since then. There is still no stock as of this time. The item is showing ‘discontinued’ without the ability to be added to a basket at this moment.

3) We cancelled the order 2 hours after receiving it, refunded the PayPal payment and removed the item from Sale page. We did not try to offer a costlier alternative at the time.

4) After Adam posted a thread on DPReview, our communication manager Raju Lalwani noticed it and proposed to source the lens for him and offer it at cost. Our buying team managed to secure one from one of our competitor for a trade price of approx. US 860. We offered Adam the lens for $850 at 4:28pm GMT+8, 31st December 2010 as a resolution, which he declined. Had Adam agreed to go ahead with the purchase, we would not make any profit off the transaction.

What we didn’t do well:

1) We have planned to reinstate the products that are not permanently discontinued AFTER the January sale, however this item was reinstated to its original price and status and we failed to catch it.

2) The first email sent to Adam by our rep when the order was cancelled was indeed a ‘canned email’ (i.e. standard response), which was not suitable for the occasion.

Do we have to honor the deal and absorb the loss? No. Our terms and conditions states that orders are not accepted until shipped. Also the same T&C states that a number of listings on our website are mispriced. You’ll find similar terms on other e-commerce sites. These terms are meant to protect the merchant from pricing and availability mistakes, which are difficult to avoid once the catalogue gets larger.

Should we honor the deal and absorb the loss? Had we communicated clearly in the first instance, I would probably say no. But we didn’t do well with communications, therefore it is the right thing to do to honor the deal and absorb the loss. I have apologised to Adam in my email to him as well. The way our operational teams handled this case is not perfect. In their defense, this is the busiest month of the year and handling thousands of SKUs and hundreds of emails/calls without a mistake or two are not entirely possible. They are only human. I can understand them, but I’m not denying my responsibility to minimise these mistakes.

My (related or unrelated) thoughts:

1) I do not believe some of the terms used by Adam are appropriate, no matter how angry he is. The Internet is very open and but we are still held accountable for whatever we say. We welcome criticisms based on factual information, and we welcome monitoring from the community. Labeling us crooked outfit does not help the case, especially when we were having on-going and polite communications privately. Some say “customers are always right”. I do not agree. I think it’s unfair to most of the customers if businesses spent most of their resources dealing with abrasive customer behaviours.

2) Some members of the community have suggested that business should simply absorb loss to avoid bad press. I do not fully agree. I do think businesses need to use their common sense, or human sense, and only absorb the costs when there is a degree of fault to be found with the merchant. That is why in this case, I think we should honor the deal due to the foresaid points. But I do not believe businesses should simply absorb costs purely to avoid threats of negative publicity. It’s a lot easier to simply eat the costs and move on. But if businesses collectively chose the easy approach rather than the right approach, consumers will end up bearing the increased costs.

3) Internet has given both businesses and consumers more powers than ever. We should cherish the openness provided by this open community and stand by our words. Be fair to each other and we’ll build a much better community for everyone to enjoy.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has supported DigitalRev, and also thank everyone who has given us constructive criticism. It’s the sum of both that kept us doing what we do. Please tell us how we could improve by sending us an email at comm@ digitalrev dot com, or post on our Facebook page. Happy New Year and happy shooting!

Yours truly,

Richard Yu
CEO & Chief Customer Services Officer
DigitalRev.com
 
A very gracious response in my opinion.

The OP had no reason to expect to get the Zeiss at that price once they were sold out.

His complaining was misplaced and unfair to Digital Rev.

But Digital Rev stepped in anyway.

I would happily buy from them.
 
Good response.

But for this situation. If an offer is made (as in the ad). And the deal is accepted ( money received). That's the end of the story. Deliver the product. If a mistake is made by the vendor. Eat it. Don't let it get to the point where the customer is rallying the forums. Yell at your employee who messed up. Apologize to the customer. Deliver the product. I suspect this does not happen that often and you are acting penny wise and pound foolish by doing what you did.

So good final outcome.... but I bet you damaged your rep a bit by this and was it worth $500 for that to happen.

--
Bob Keenan
http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/
 
I think this is a proper response and I believe the section below is really key and for me probably the most influential part of the response. I agree that businesses shouldn't just cave in to every complaining customer and absorb the cost. But I do think mistakes were made here and I really respect this response. Just like the story I told in my last post about Canon replacing my out-of-warranty camera: they had 100% no legal obligation to do so, but mistakes were made and they did what they could to fix things.

This is a great attitude, and I can say that I, for one, have a new respect for DigitalRev.
DigitalRev said:
Should we honor the deal and absorb the loss? Had we communicated clearly in the first instance, I would probably say no. But we didn’t do well with communications, therefore it is the right thing to do to honor the deal and absorb the loss. I have apologised to Adam in my email to him as well.
Click to expand...
 
The OP acted like a spoilt brat - unable to have his toy, he threw all the baby items out of the pram and cried.

Unable to accept a case of miscommunication - he used the internet to tarnish a reputable dealer's name in the hope of getting his way. Appalling behaviour.

Don't imagine he will be man enough to actually admit it was unreasonable demand and thank DigitalRev for doing what they had no reason to - bow to his intimidation.

Geesh - makes me so bleeding cross. As a small business owner myself, I know the damage these blackmailers do to companies. I can just imagine how he would react if a customer did the same to him.

--
----------------------------------------------
Michael Gove
http://photosignals.smugmug.com
 
Well done to Richard Yu of Digital Rev for doing the right thing. You have restored & enhanced your company's reputation.

Well done to Adam Horshack. You stood up for your rights, refused to be intimidated & helped other prospective buyers.

Good result
 
The OP is nothing more than a spoilt bully.

While I think it's clear that DR could have done things better, a simple mistake is still a simple mistake, and if you ask me, once the mistake was made they have handled it exactly as they should have - shame the same can't be said for the OP.

For what it's worth, I have used DR a few times over the years and never had any problem with them, infact I'm happy to recommend them to anyone, even more so now.
 
Mushymatt said:
The OP is nothing more than a spoilt bully.

While I think it's clear that DR could have done things better, a simple mistake is still a simple mistake, and if you ask me, once the mistake was made they have handled it exactly as they should have - shame the same can't be said for the OP.

For what it's worth, I have used DR a few times over the years and never had any problem with them, infact I'm happy to recommend them to anyone, even more so now.
Click to expand...
I see this is your first ever post.
So you joined DPR today just so you could deprecate another member ?
 
halfamo said:
Mushymatt said:
The OP is nothing more than a spoilt bully.

While I think it's clear that DR could have done things better, a simple mistake is still a simple mistake, and if you ask me, once the mistake was made they have handled it exactly as they should have - shame the same can't be said for the OP.

For what it's worth, I have used DR a few times over the years and never had any problem with them, infact I'm happy to recommend them to anyone, even more so now.
Click to expand...
I see this is your first ever post.
So you joined DPR today just so you could deprecate another member ?
Click to expand...
Partly.....I have an existing account that I can't access at the moment due to being away from my work email (forgot my Pw). But if you asking did I re register just to deprecate the OP then yes I did, I don't think it's fair to start a witch hunt against a well respected company, or anyone for that matter who have simply made a minor mistake.
 
Richard Yu, the CEO of DigitalRev, wrote me an email that included some of the points he made in his "Our resolution, apology and thanks" post here on dpreview along with some additional points. Here was my response to him:

Hi Richard,

First, thank you for taking the time to write this email and explain your side of the story. Happy new year to you as well.

We obviously have two completely different accounts of what has transpired here, owing apparently to different amounts of information available to each side. My account was based solely on the interaction with your web site and the subsequent communication I received from your support representatives. Your account is based on the same information that was made available to me plus some additional information that was known only by DigitalRev and not shared with me until after your support department's final rejection of my request to reinstate the order. If we can step into each other's shoes perhaps our different accounts can be reconciled and empathized.

I'll attempt to step into your shoes first. Based on the information you've now provided, DigitalRev's intention was to hold a clearance sale for a certain number of Zeiss lenses that were acquired at a large discount and then to discontinue selling that lens. DigitalRev feels that my characterization of "bait and switch" is unfair because its intentions were honest and the appearance of a bait and switch was caused by a number of unfortunate cascading errors, starting with the website's failure to accurately account for available inventory and ending with a busy support department's failure to accurately convey the personalized particulars about why an order could not be fulfilled for the accepted price/payment. Is this a fair assessment?

Let me now offer the information that was available to me so that you may step into my shoes. I learned of DigitalRev's sale via a message-board posting on fredmiranda.com. I clicked through a direct link on that posting, which landed me on DigitalRev's "Big Sale" portal page that contained a listing for several lenses at deep discounts, including the Zeiss 35mm ZF.2. There was no indication of a "Clearance Sale" or "limited stock at this price" on that portal page, nor on any of the other pages that the site navigated me through in the course of completing the checkout process. The cart page listed the lens in-stock with 24-hour delivery and I completed my order and paid via PayPal. Two hours later I received what appeared to be a personalized email stating that my order had be canceled because the lens was out of stock and also could not be acquired from alternate sources. I responded that I'm in no hurry and asked that my order be reinstated so that it could be fulfilled at a later date. I then soon revisited the website and found that the lens was listed as in-stock for 24-hour delivery but at the original list price. I responded a second time to the support department, noting that lens was in stock and repeated my request to reinstate the order. The response I got back from support was "once an order is closed we can not reopen it". There was no denial that the lens was in stock and available, nor that my order wasn't valid; just simply that they can't reopen a closed order. This seemed implausible to me and I thought either it was a simple oversight, most likely caused by two different support reps looking at my two separate responses and the second rep seeing only a closed order that couldn't be reopened, or that I had be deceived. So I wrote a very through response for clarification, which read:

"So if I'm to understand your correspondence correctly, you canceled my order for the Zeiss lens because you didn't have any in stock and had no vendor/supplier which could replenish your stock at a later date. On that same day I checked your website and it shows you in fact have the lens in stock at the non-discounted price and that it ships immediately. When I reported this inventory status back to you on the same day and asked for you to reinstate my order, you now reply that you can't reopen a closed order. I'm not sure what is customary for the photo/video vendors in Hong Kong but in America your actions so far constitute not only bad service but consumer fraud. I would like to request that you reconsider my request and please reinstate my order and fulfill your original commitment to supply me the Zeiss lens at the price you advertised and at the price I paid to you through the PayPal transaction on your site."

To which the support department again replied "To confirm, we cancelled your order because we had a stock issue for the Carl Zeiss lens you ordered."

Your thoughtful email presumes that I'm aware that DigitalRev is not a fraudulent company. But on what basis do you believe this is a valid presumption for me to have? You are the CEO of DigitalRev who knows and believes you run a reputable business. I am a customer who is interacting with DigitalRev for the first time, a company foreign to me both literally (Hong Kong) and figuratively (my first order). And the events I described above are my first and only experience with the company. Now let me please ask - how would you interpret and respond to these events if you were in my shoes?

Perhaps now we can both experience this fully from each other's shoes. I gladly accept your offer to sell me the lens at the discounted price and I will immediately resubmit a payment via PayPal for 538.49.

Best Regards,

Adam
--
Kodak Instant Camera
Kyocera 1MP Camera phone (pre-paid phone plan)
http://horshack.smugmug.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top