What is this SCARINESS in my diamond that I thought I loved?? PIC

[elle_chris]

Rockdiamond- Because you know for a FACT that all pinks aren't treated. You don't know for a fact that this jeweler did anything wrong other than crappy customer service. Even so, they're at least trying to come to some sort of agreement with Kristie. We don't know if they're going to deduct the full 4k yet either.

And yes, you were talking about this specifc jeweler and said their practices were shady and they were lying. Period. No way around it, it's what you wrote. You can spin it any way you like after the fact, but that doesn't change anything.

Chase- This is NOT their stone. It was CALLED IN. That means they never owned it. In other words, they acted like the middleman. When Kristie decided to purchase it, that's when they bought it from the supplier. That's it. Kristie had it independently appraised. If anything, the appraiser should have told her it's not worth buying. Where's the outrage there? But that's not what happened. Kristie liked it, the appraiser liked it, the sale was made.

As far as as how they're behaving, yes, they could cut her a break, but again, they're not obligated to as they did nothing wrong.

Edited.

 

[Chase035]

There''s one thing that''s clear to me here. It''s that neither the vendor, elle, and whole host of those pinning this on Kristie have much experience in PR/CRM or the insight into retail that allows them to see the big picture here. I promise you, this company would make an excellent HBS case for how NOT to behave in the 21st century retail environment. Let me outline what I mean:

1.) No single sale SHOULD EVER be considered important enough when weighed against long-time customer relationship management and public relations agendas. To the extent that this company involved itself in a transaction that means so much to them that they are willing to risk this type of negative exposure, they have displayed a lack of experience and aptitude in sales and marketing.

2.) The retailer has a responsibility to the customer. If it has a written return policy and an exception to that policy, that exception should not only be stated in writing, but explained to the consumer. This is the only decent way to behave as a retailer. Example: This company needed to stress to the consumer that there would be NO RETURNS as a result of this "mazal." To the extent that they did not make this clear to the consumer, they have violated the consumers right to understand the contract she was entering into. Consumers have rights, independent of the fine print.

3.) This company CLEARLY does not think this ring is worth the price they sold it for. Not to them. Well then, that had no business selling it in the first place. That they did so anyway, well, then they have behaved reprehensibly. Future Buyer Beware.

4.) It has become standard business practice to accept returns under any circumstance for store credit minus a small restocking fee. 20% is not small. It is not standard. It is not acceptable.

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/25/2010 6:52:50 PM
Author: elle_chris

Rockdiamond- Because you know for a FACT that all pinks aren''t treated. You don''t know for a fact that this jeweler did anything wrong other than crappy customer service. Even so, they''re at least trying to come to some sort of agreement with Kristie. We don''t know if they''re going to deduct the full 4k yet either.

And yes, you were talking about this specifc jeweler and said their practices were shady and they were lying. Period. No way around it, it''s what you wrote. You can spin it any way you like after the fact, but that doesn''t change anything.

Chase- This is NOT their stone. It was CALLED IN. That means they never owned it. In other words, they acted like the middleman and got a cut. That''s it. Kristie had it independently appraised. If anything, the appraiser should have told her it''s not worth buying. Where''s the outrage there? But that''s not what happened. Kristie liked it, the appraiser liked it, the sale was made.

As far as as how they''re behaving, yes, they could cut her a break, but again, they''re not obligated to as they did nothing wrong.

Let me just emphasize that this is not the majority opinion of the PR/CRM/CS field, the vast majority of whom would slam this retailer for, at the very least, underhanded practices. Obligated legally, maybe not. Obligated by sheer common sense, business ethics, and PR acumen, yes.

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/25/2010 6:52:58 PM
Author: Chase035
There's one thing that's clear to me here. It's that neither the vendor, elle, and whole host of those pinning this on Kristie have much experience in PR/CRM or the insight into retail that allows them to see the big picture here. I promise you, this company would make an excellent HBS case for how NOT to behave in the 21st century retail environment. Let me outline what I mean:


1.) No single sale SHOULD EVER be considered important enough when weighed against long-time customer relationship management and public relations agendas. To the extent that this company involved itself in a transaction that means so much to them that they are willing to risk this type of negative exposure, they have displayed a lack of experience and aptitude in sales and marketing.


2.) The retailer has a responsibility to the customer. If it has a written return policy and an exception to that policy, that exception should not only be stated in writing, but explained to the consumer. This is the only decent way to behave as a retailer. Example: This company needed to stress to the consumer that there would be NO RETURNS as a result of this 'mazal.' To the extent that they did not make this clear to the consumer, they have violated the consumers right to understand the contract she was entering into. Consumers have rights, independent of the fine print.


3.) This company CLEARLY does not think this ring is worth the price they sold it for. Not to them. Well then, that had no business selling it in the first place. That they did so anyway, well, then they have behaved reprehensibly. Future Buyer Beware.


4.) It has become standard business practice to accept returns under any circumstance for store credit minus a small restocking fee. 20% is not small. It is not standard. It is not acceptable.

I could not disagree with you more. The buyer has a responsibility as well. You dont buy a suit and have someone alter it and then say 2 weeks later-" wow in the bright light of noon I hate this color green. Take it back." Further in the diamond and jewelry business--as in most businesses--the items being sold are sold at what is commonly called "a profit." So everything is worth less than the sale price. At Saks they have a policy that if an item is returned after 30 days with the original receipt it is sold at whatever the current selling price is--so if its been marked down the person gets that amount. retailers have widely varying return policies--I think its really pushing it for someone to have the item sent to an appraiser (about which she stated "I was very fortunate that I was able to look at it in every imaginable type of lighting at the appraiser") --tell the vendor she is taking it and have it mounted and then two weeks later (worn or not) decide she cant live with it.

ALSO: I would like to add that I, like most here, think that this stinks for Kristie. I think they should take back the stone and work out a deal with their supplier etc etc. And give here full credit. My main issue is with the people who think the vendor is entirely in the wrong here. I dont agree. At least based on what we've been told.

 

[Ella]

Please remember that the focus of this thread should stay on helping the OP.

 

[elle_chris]

Chase, regardless of everything you've learned in your classes, this company will remain in business in spite of this transaction.

Just so you know, I did sales for a few years at a lage medical company and had many accounts I constantly needed to please. So yea, I know all about Customer Relations. That doesn't change what I think. That also doesn't mean anyone here doesn't understand how she feels. Of course we do. We all hope that this get resolved in a way that will be beneficial to Kristie.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/25/2010 1:48:56 PM
Author: kristie

Since it seems as though some people want to attack rather than help, and they refuse to read ALL of my posts before commenting in a snarky manner....I am done here.

Kristie...

let us know the end result.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hopefully she has gained the insight to achieve a far better settlement.
I believe it's factually incorrect to state that the return of one diamond can cause a dealer to loose all their diamond buying privileges from other diamond cutters.

 

[Chase035]

I never said the vendor is entirely in the wrong. I just think they are the ones with the wherewithal to make this right and find an amicable solution for all parties involved. That''s the 21st century business environment. And it has come to be this way because customers, particularly in this industry, have gotten the short end one too many times. Companies who try to cut corners are doing a disservice to us all.

As David Atlas has said,

A reputation takes decades to earn and a moment to ruin.

This has been their moment in my eyes.

 

[NovemberBride]

I am very interested to know if there was a return policy here. For all we know there was a return policy and OP has passed it, I think it''s interesting that she hasn''t mentioned it at all. I am interested to know if those that are slamming the vendor would change their opinions then?

If this were one of the other vendors that offers a 10 day return policy, would that have elapsed by now? For instance, if WF brought in a stone for you, sent it to you and you got it on day 1, had it appraised and sent it back to WF to be set on day 3, would your 10 days continue to run while it was at WF? Or would your 10 day period be on hold when it was being set and then you''d get the remaining 7 days once it was returned to you?

 

[Chase035]

Yes I would. If there was a written AND reminded no return policy for this diamond (or shortened return policy as a result of the "mazal"), then yes, I''d be less harsh in my words against the vendor). However, i would not change my opinion about the proper recourse. The company should accept some sort of exchange or return (like store credit minus a reasonable restocking fee).

Back to Kristie and lets stay there. I really hope she calls about a chargeback on the grounds that the return policy wasn''t clearly communicated and the exceptions to it were not stated in writing. If, or course, that is the case. A call should also be placed to the BBB and other consumer advocacy groups. She should not, under any circumstances, involve herself in an even bigger investment in this companies good word and trust through a bigger transaction. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on the forum for not advising her otherwise.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If this thread served it's purpose, the vendor will have read it and learned.
This could result in a far better settlement for kristie, negate the need for charge-backs and have the seller be far better prepared next time- good for all concerned.
If the seller does so, then we'll all probably never get to know who it was.

 

[Chase035]

To be honest, I did not buy from WF because of that very policy. They offered to bring in a stone I was interested in, but I did not like their policies in respect to the stones that were not in house. The difference here is that the sales team at WF CLEARLY warned me of the difference between buying an in house diamond vs. one I had requested and made every effort to inform me of my rights and responsibilities in this sort of transaction. WF is a grade A company in that respect, and example of what this unknown vendor needs to aspire toward if they weren''t upfront with Kristie.

 

[Maisie]

Oh no! I just read where Kristie said she isn''t coming back. Not knowing how it ends is going to kill me.

 

[bgray]

we are all making assertions and suppositions based on nothing factual. we dont know the vendor or their policy or the communication between the vendor and the buyer. also many vendors have a policy that once the gem/stone/item is set-the sale is final.

 

[Chase035]

To me, it doesn''t really matter what the facts are, to be honest. The vendor should find an amicable solution to the problem. Any time one of their customers is not satisfied, that is the only wise way to approach this. If their reputation is not worth $4,000, well, then that says a lot.

 

[LamborghiniGirl]

I would be fuming if i was you right now! So frustrating i bet.

But let''s be honest, this is your fault. I am surprised you would toss that much money around when the jeweler didn''t have a stated return policy. That isn''t very responsible on your part; the jeweler is just in business to profit, when it all comes down to it.

I have noticed across all industries that customer service has disappeared or decreased significantly. It doesn''t make it right, but that''s just the way it is. Of course, the best business owners recognize customer service should never be sacrificed, and they should WANT to find a solution. But, they are trying to protect themselves, and you should have done the same for yourself.

In the grand scheme of things, $4000 isn''t that big of a loss in life. If that is the worst thing that happens to you, you should be thankful!! That''s what I always say to myself when something seems awful.
On the bright side, you will never make the same mistake again.

If I was you, I''d take the $4000 loss and walk away!! They treated you like crap with such a big purchase--
I would NEVER do business with them again!

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/25/2010 8:28:59 PM
Author: Chase035
To me, it doesn''t really matter what the facts are, to be honest. The vendor should find an amicable solution to the problem. Any time one of their customers is not satisfied, that is the only wise way to approach this. If their reputation is not worth $4,000, well, then that says a lot.

this is a truly frightening comment--you dont care what the facts are? rational society operates on the idea of mutually beneficial interaction, responsibility by all parties. not caring about facts --not only is that not rational it is dangerous.

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/25/2010 9:25:26 PM
Author: bgray

Date: 2/25/2010 8:28:59 PM
Author: Chase035
To me, it doesn''t really matter what the facts are, to be honest. The vendor should find an amicable solution to the problem. Any time one of their customers is not satisfied, that is the only wise way to approach this. If their reputation is not worth $4,000, well, then that says a lot.

this is a truly frightening comment--you dont care what the facts are? rational society operates on the idea of mutually beneficial interaction, responsibility by all parties. not caring about facts --not only is that not rational it is dangerous.

I guess you''re seeing this from the "who''s fault is it" perspective. I''m recommending the company looks beyond that and thinks about what is best for its business interests. The loss of $4000 is nothing compared to the loss of the faith, trust, and confidence future customers will have in your business if you operate like this. To that extent, no... the facts aren''t more relevant than the company''s LT interests. That is not dangerous. It''s the law of the land in the Fortune 500. Its the approach that earns companies a long term sustainable competitive advantage over companies operated by managers who approach each situation from an "it wasn''t our fault it was hers" perspective. I don''t know any other way to say that this isn''t a matter of opinion. There''s a wealth of data and research to support the idea that this company has it all wrong here. Good companies don''t operate this way. Best practices are best practices for a reason.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Kristie,
I am on a cruise with very expensive connection.
I have downoladed and read a few pages - I wish you good luck.
You have had a great range of advice - I am sure you will work it out

Regards

 

[sdevante]

Chase, your point is well taken, but moot int his case because how does the business suffer any loss of reputation when the offended consumer won''t even tell anybody the name of the company.

To me, this whole thread seems kinda odd because if the company screws her over, why cover their name and protect their reputation? Conversely, if the company does right by her, again, why not give them good publicity.

Shenanigans.

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/25/2010 9:48:02 PM
Author: Chase035

Date: 2/25/2010 9:25:26 PM

Author: bgray

Date: 2/25/2010 8:28:59 PM

Author: Chase035

To me, it doesn''t really matter what the facts are, to be honest. The vendor should find an amicable solution to the problem. Any time one of their customers is not satisfied, that is the only wise way to approach this. If their reputation is not worth $4,000, well, then that says a lot.

this is a truly frightening comment--you dont care what the facts are? rational society operates on the idea of mutually beneficial interaction, responsibility by all parties. not caring about facts --not only is that not rational it is dangerous.

I guess you''re seeing this from the ''who''s fault is it'' perspective. I''m recommending the company looks beyond that and thinks about what is best for its business interests. The loss of $4000 is nothing compared to the loss of the faith, trust, and confidence future customers will have in your business if you operate like this. To that extent, no... the facts aren''t more relevant than the company''s LT interests. That is not dangerous. It''s the law of the land in the Fortune 500. Its the approach that earns companies a long term sustainable competitive advantage over companies operated by managers who approach each situation from an ''it wasn''t our fault it was hers'' perspective. I don''t know any other way to say that this isn''t a matter of opinion. There''s a wealth of data and research to support the idea that this company has it all wrong here. Good companies don''t operate this way. Best practices are best practices for a reason.

no actually i am seeing it from a "they are both responsible" perspective.

 

[kenny]

Date: 2/25/2010 10:23:11 PM
Author: sdevante
Chase, your point is well taken, but moot int his case because how does the business suffer any loss of reputation when the offended consumer won't even tell anybody the name of the company.

This is not resolved yet.
She told the vendor about this thread.
The company is more likely to treat her well if she keeps their name secret.

If they would have done right up front THEN posting their name would have been good publicity.
If they now "do right" they still look bad because they only did right only after the threat of exposure.

A couple years ago United Airlines broke the guitar of the wrong guy.
He tried unsuccessfully for a year to get United to pay for repairs.
He wrote a song, "United Breaks Guitars" and made a cheap but clever video that went viral.
AFTER the song got zillions of hits United contacted him to pay for repairs, and asked for him to remove the video (Yeah right; as if you can unring a bell!)
He said no thanks and left the video up.

Here's the video, which has gotten almost 8 million views now, much to the chagrin of United Airlines.
United should have treated him well up front.
The Internet has become the great equalizer when companies try to treat us badly.
Now, companies better be careful because the world may be watching.

Click here

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/25/2010 8:11:14 PM
Author: Chase035
Yes I would. If there was a written AND reminded no return policy for this diamond (or shortened return policy as a result of the ''mazal''), then yes, I''d be less harsh in my words against the vendor). However, i would not change my opinion about the proper recourse. The company should accept some sort of exchange or return (like store credit minus a reasonable restocking fee).

Back to Kristie and lets stay there. I really hope she calls about a chargeback on the grounds that the return policy wasn''t clearly communicated and the exceptions to it were not stated in writing. If, or course, that is the case. A call should also be placed to the BBB and other consumer advocacy groups. She should not, under any circumstances, involve herself in an even bigger investment in this companies good word and trust through a bigger transaction. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on the forum for not advising her otherwise.

Chase, if you had half the business experience that you keep trying to say that you have, you''d know that the Better Business Bureau is one of the most toothless/worthless "customer" advocacy groups out there. They take money from businesses for membership/plaques, and are basically a joke. Life (and businesses) don''t run like they teach the kiddies in school.

I wish the supplier would be named. I''d be interested in knowing about a company who stood by their mazel. Why should the cutter be penalized for a consumer''s mistake? If they followed your advice, I guess it would just be "stuff flows downhill, and guess what, the cutter is at the bottom"

It is incumbent upon anyone spending even a dollar, much less twenty two thousand dollars, to ask about a return policy. Does anyone really believe a prudent person wouldn''t ask? (does anyone actually believe the OP didn''t ask

)

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 2/25/2010 10:59:01 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 2/25/2010 10:23:11 PM

Author: sdevante

Chase, your point is well taken, but moot int his case because how does the business suffer any loss of reputation when the offended consumer won''t even tell anybody the name of the company.

This is not resolved yet.

She told the vendor about this thread.

The company is more likely to treat her well if she keeps their name secret.


If they now ''do right'' they still look bad because they only did right only after the threat of exposure.


If they would have done right up front THEN posting their name would have been good publicity.


Last year United airlines broke the guitar of the wrong guy.

He tried unsuccessfully for a year to get United to pay for repairs.

He wrote a song, ''United Breaks Guitars'' and made a clever cheap video that went viral.

AFTER the song got zillions of hits United contacted him to pay for repairs.


Here''s the video, which has gotten almost 8 million views now, much to the Chagrin of United Airlines.

United should have treated him well up front.

The Internet has become the great equalizer when companies try to treat us badly.


Click here

yup, exactly kenny.

Which is why I for one am disappointed with the way Kristie has been treated, and subsequently driven away, from this thread.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

What saddens me currently in this thread is that Rockdiamond especially and myself are being smeared because we simply call certain statements of the vendor about the general processes in this industry incorrect. It is really hard to accept that after more than 20 years of experience, we would not know the industry. This cannot be compared to differences of opinion about cut-quality or grading, we are talking about standard procedures amongst all industry-members, and the vendor in question is totally incorrect in his statements about them.

On top of that, the vendor is abusing this situation to basically steal 4K of the OP. If the stone is close to correctly represented, there is no way that the vendor risks to lose 4K, even when trying to sell it in a fire-sale to a wholesaler. Which leads to the conclusion that either they are trying to make an extra profit on the return or the stone was incorrectly represented.

I too agree that Kristie bears part of the responsibility and that a full buyback could be difficult to defend. But there should be absolutely no problem to give her a full store-credit, quid non.

Live long,

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/26/2010 6:15:33 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
What saddens me currently in this thread is that Rockdiamond especially and myself are being smeared because we simply call certain statements of the vendor about the general processes in this industry incorrect. It is really hard to accept that after more than 20 years of experience, we would not know the industry. This cannot be compared to differences of opinion about cut-quality or grading, we are talking about standard procedures amongst all industry-members, and the vendor in question is totally incorrect in his statements about them.

On top of that, the vendor is abusing this situation to basically steal 4K of the OP. If the stone is close to correctly represented, there is no way that the vendor risks to lose 4K, even when trying to sell it in a fire-sale to a wholesaler. Which leads to the conclusion that either they are trying to make an extra profit on the return or the stone was incorrectly represented.

I too agree that Kristie bears part of the responsibility and that a full buyback could be difficult to defend. But there should be absolutely no problem to give her a full store-credit, quid non.

Live long,

1) It doesn''t surprise me at all, Paul. There is a growing resentment against the expert in American society. Your experience and education is completely irrelevant to them. They went to the school of real life, so what do you know. That you took this beyond my general comments about PR/CRM policy and extended it to accepted practices in the diamond industry, given your experience therein, was a significant contribution to this thread. It seems to have gone unnoticed.

2) It is completely irrational of this company to put their entire reputation on the line for 4k. In all likelihood, one of the following is true:

(1) Kristie damaged the stone and did not tell us that that is why they would take it back
(2) The vendor collected an unusually high margin on the stone without accepting an ounce of risk, and are happy to keep it that way
(3) The stone wasn''t what they said it was

If you don''t believe (2) and (3), you must believe (1). And I think the vendor would have come on here and explained that in that case. They had no reason not to if she was threatening to reveal their name.

 

[bgray]

1)how did this evolve to any assertion that the stone was mis-represented? 2)it is not wrong for a seller of anything to charge whatever they want to--if someone will pay the price. 3)the buyer decided that she couldnt live with an Si2 stone after "seeing" it in other light sources. this is about a vendor accomodating a buyer remorse situation.

 

[elle_chris]

Chase- You know nothing about company yet you''re assuming they have terrible public relations. We also know nothing about their policies, but again you''re thinking have terrible customer relations. Have you seen their financials? Their P&L statement last quarter? Know anything about their cash flow? Do you even know who this company is?? I mean seriously, to make such a huge generilzation based on knowing NOTHING is really pushing it.

Put it this way, if I run a business and i''m seeing a trend in returns on virtual listings, i can not constantly go back and say "sorry" to the supplier. This would also cause a PR nightmare for my company as the suppliers become hesitant to send out stones n the future. So what are my options? Well, keep the stones. That in itself is a serious problem as it results in huge losses for my company. I can not run a business like this.

As far as the 4k, most of us agree that it’s too steep an amount to charge. However, as they’re working with her, and nothing’s yet finalized, I’m not going to assume they won’t give her more of the original price towards a new stone.

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/26/2010 10:25:58 AM
Author: elle_chris
Chase- You know nothing about company yet you''re assuming they have terrible public relations. We also know nothing about their policies, but again you''re thinking have terrible customer relations. Have you seen their financials? Their P&L statement last quarter? Know anything about their cash flow? Do you even know who this company is?? I mean seriously, to make such a huge generilzation based on knowing NOTHING is really pushing it.

Put it this way, if I run a business and i''m seeing a trend in returns on virtual listings, i can not constantly go back and say ''sorry'' to the supplier. This would also cause a PR nightmare for my company as the suppliers become hesitant to send out stones n the future. So what are my options? Well, keep the stones. That in itself is a serious problem as it results in huge losses for my company. I can not run a business like this.

As far as the 4k, most of us agree that it’s too steep an amount to charge. However, as they’re working with her, and nothing’s yet finalized, I’m not going to assume they won’t give her more of the original price towards a new stone.

Why? Because I can''t return to the diamond to its supplier? Doesn''t seem to be how things work (as per PA). Even if they have to take a bit of a hit themselves, that can be covered by the restocking fee the consumer pays. If that hit is going to be so large that they''ll have to put the consumer in a compromising position by charging her 4k, warn the consumer of such beforehand. There are plenty of vendors on here who source diamonds like that. They seem to be perfectly fine with sending them back to their origin. Maybe this vendor needs to adopt a similar approach to doing business so it can better protect its customers interests.

Of course we are reasoning inductively here. Yes, thats dangerous. You are right in that respect. There is much we do not know. But we do know about standard practices in this industry (thanks Paul). And we ought to take Kristie for her word (just seems like the decent thing to do for now).

Their approach to this particular situation is indicative of a flawed approach to running a business. That''s not a generalization, its an insight. This sort of myopia gets firms in trouble all the time. If this is how this vendor operates on a regular basis, consumers will learn from the experiences of others (through word of mouth and platforms such as PS) and the company''s bottom line will begin to reflect the lack of confidence consumers have in the brand. By the way, making generalizations is endogenous to PR/CS. It''s what customers do when Toyota makes a manufacturing error or a politician votes a particular way on a single bill. But what do I know?