RE: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story

[Jeffrey Goggin <audidudi@mindspring.com>]

>Some of us disagree.  No matter what you pay for a product or service $1 or
>$1,000 the buyer is entitled to expect and indeed demand the level of
>quality, performance, and service that the company has advertised  for that
>product and/or service.

This is nice in theory but where in Epson's (to cite the specific matter at
issue) advertising or promotional materials have they ever spelled out in
detail exactly what level of "quality, performance, and service" they
intend to provide, other than overnight exchanges on some printer models?
In today's litigious society, it's _very_ rare that a manufacturer of _any_
item will make specific, guaranteed claims about its products or the manner
in which they intend to address the problems that will inevitably surface.
Besides, as a professional negoiator (well, in a past life anyway), I
personally prefer such claims be left vague since it gives me some
manuevering room when it comes to resolving a problem.  ;^)
 
>I have yet to see a company sell a $300 item saying in its advertising
that this is an inexpensive disposable >item which should perform at a
specified level with a specified level of reliability and last a specified
time; >but because it is an inexpensive disposable item, the buyer should
not expect or feel entitled to any of those >things or to any level of
servicing.

Agreed in principle but common sense shouldn't be ignored, either.  If you
pay $300 for an item offering similar performance to items that cost far
more money, common sense suggests that compromises were made somewhere in
the design and/or manufacturing and marketing processes.  To expect the
same degree of customer service from Bazooka regarding a non-performing
piece of bubble gum as from Epson regarding a $300 printer (or potentially,
a $10,000 printer) is IMO, unrealistic. 

>Using your argument, I am left to wonder at what price point one begins to
>have a right to get righteous and take on a sense of entitlement.  From my
>perspective, that right to get what one deserves is expressed and defined by
>the company's claims, advertising and marketing materials, and promotional
>statements; and by virtue of making such claims and statements, the company
>has committed itself to providing said levels of performance, quality,
>reliability, and servicing.  They have a contract with the buyer; and the
>buyer is entitled to expect that they deserve the company's fulfilling its
>contractual obligation. If this is not the case, then there is no difference
>between a legitimate business deal and a scam.

In my experience, I'd rather rely upon the company's goodwill and
reputation than a written policy stating their (self-imposed) customer
service obligations any day.  When you start thinking in terms of
contracts, explicit or implied, the battle has already been lost regardless
of the outcome...

On a more general note, though, what's wrong with saying "thank you" or
publicizing a good deed?  By your logic, there's no need to thank a
waitress for bringing me a clean fork since: 1) It's their job and 2) It
shouldn't be dirty in the first place.  And of course, there's no need to
praise an employee (or a child) for a job well done since they're
_expected_ to discharge their duties (chores) in a timely and competent
manner...

Anyway, enough of that.  It's time to get back to discussing Vuescan!  ;^)


Jeff Goggin
Scottsdale, AZ