Submitted by k4zie t3_zx1oac in MechanicalKeyboards
ahauser31 t1_j1zmexr wrote
Reply to comment by k4zie in Novelkeys - Poor Customer Service by k4zie
You seem to have sent them a picture of a socket damaged by an improperly inserted switch. I don't know what you expected, but that the vendor thinks this was your fault is not really a surprise. I can't tell from the picture you posted if the socket you highlighted is properly soldered or not - but be it as it may, to post a PSA about the vendor that seems to me to be in the right here wasn't the best way to go about this (don't get me wrong, as a fellow consumer I would love if vendors replaced PCBs no questions asked... But they actually need to make money, and replacing stuff for free that the customer broke is not how that is done)
k4zie OP t1_j1zn45v wrote
That's fair, because I realize you're an outside party seeing all this.
Let me ask you though, because I'm clarifying this at the core of my post - should vendors automatically push blame on their customer from the start?
That's ultimately what happened here. Pics definitely help, especially on a public forum. But the sole purpose of this is to warm others so the back and forth with the vendor doesn't go in this direction like it did with me.
If their strategy is to blame the customer first, I'm just warning others to check everything to protect themselves.
Deadbolt11 t1_j1zpkku wrote
It's a numbers game with a hotswap board.
Which do you think is more likely out of the thousands of pcb's they push out.
1)The PCB is defective
2)The user popped a socket out
At some point you do have to protect your business interests and can't give out a free pcb because the customer damaged one.
k4zie OP t1_j1zqjri wrote
Fair from a business perspective.
If #1 ends up being the issue, and someone reaches out for support and is automatically accused of #2, is that proper customer service though?
I get a vendors perspective. That does not mean they should automatically treat their customers like the only outcome is #2. That's the problem.
Deadbolt11 t1_j1zqswg wrote
Were they right though?
You don't design customer service scripts for the 3% scenario, you design them for the 97% and course correct for the 3%.
k4zie OP t1_j1zrfq1 wrote
I don't know honestly. They are adamant they are. I'm not so sure. And without a time machine I can't be 100% certain.
Scripts are absolutely for the 97%. The 3% are the ones who make noise. But the ones who ultimately brand you are the ones who fall through the cracks, and if you know anything about statistics in sales, you know that's due to poor customer handling.
_Jimboop_ t1_j1zvq64 wrote
This doesn’t make sense, why are you dying on this hill
k4zie OP t1_j1zyao4 wrote
Not dying on this hill my friend, just clarifying wacky misinterpretations of what I posted. Some fanboys are taking it way too seriously. I'm just hoping it helps others.
andromache97 t1_j1zzpi4 wrote
the helpful advice you should be giving others is to test their PCBs before inserting switches
Deadbolt11 t1_j1ztasr wrote
> I don't know honestly. They are adamant they are. I'm not so sure. And without a time machine I can't be 100% certain.
Judging by the pictures they posted vs your account of events, I can't be 100% certain, but I can feel comfortable closer to 95% certain. I was very careful with my last hotswap board and still managed to pop a socket loose.
k4zie OP t1_j1zu26u wrote
Let's assume you are right in your estimate. All of this being judged from a picture and not actually fully testing the socket or having prove of it's condition prior to unboxing.
Do you take that remaining 5%, cast it out and automatically assign blame?
Point is, if the outcome is 100% assignment of blame, in a situation - as you stated - that is 95% certain from a visual inspection - how exactly is that logical?
Deadbolt11 t1_j1zua0v wrote
I was being kind in saying 95%. Hotswap sockets don't get dents in the plastic on top by magic.
k4zie OP t1_j1zvhmf wrote
Are you also going to tell me that all sockets don't have dents / imperfections unless a switch has been inserted?
Listen, I'm not trying to argue here. You have your opinion and I respect that.
Your logic doesn't justify my being accused of fault with no other recourse. That isn't fair and it justifies warning others of this.
Deadbolt11 t1_j1zw867 wrote
Saying they gave you "no other recourse" is being a tad bit dishonest. They let you know how to fix it, they offered to fix it(at your cost, as while they can't prove you popped the socket, the images look like ya did) and ultimately accepted your return when you threatened the nuclear option.
If you'd have had clear pictures with the socket having no solder on it at all or a socket showing no signs of damage I'd agree, they are being unreasonable, but I haven't seen a picture to that as of yet.
k4zie OP t1_j1zxwg9 wrote
I use no other recourse because of the following:
My gf got this during the black Friday sale. They have a short 15 day return window. I got it for Xmas. So I can't return it per their policy.
They put the blame on me from the start. I got what was meant to be a new, fully working keyboard. But since the assumption was that it can only be my fault, to get it functional, I either had to attempt to repair it myself or give them money to do so.
Let me ask you, if you buy a car, take it home and it doesn't turn on the next day - do you fix it yourself or pay the dealer to fix it? Nope, you use the warranty. And the dealer won't tell you that X, Y, or C is automatically your fault because you drove it.
I understand my analogy is not completely parallel but it illustrates my point.
The nature of selling a hot swap board is to insert switches. But the policy should not be to not cover any instance of insertion or anything about insertion when that's what the board is designed for.
Are most issues due to user error, yep, they probably are. But are All User error without any reasonable explanation? No they are not, so don't treat your customers like that.
Deadbolt11 t1_j2003k5 wrote
> My gf got this during the black Friday sale. They have a short 15 day return window. I got it for Xmas. So I can't return it per their policy.
This isn't their fault.
>Let me ask you, if you buy a car, take it home and it doesn't turn on the next day - do you fix it yourself or pay the dealer to fix it? Nope, you use the warranty. And the dealer won't tell you that X, Y, or C is automatically your fault because you drove it.
This isn't an apples to apples comparison. I know you say your analogy isn't parallel but it doesn't illustrate your point. If you take the car home and put new rims on it and over tighten a lug nut onto the stud, are you going to take it back to the dealer and say it's their fault?
>The nature of selling a hot swap board is to insert switches. But the policy should not be to not cover any instance of insertion or anything about insertion when that's what the board is designed for.
Agree to disagree, the nature of hot swaps boards is that they are fragile. If I was a vendor selling hot swap pcbs, I'd set the policy the exact same.
>Are most issues due to user error, yep, they probably are. But are All User error without any reasonable explanation? No they are not, so don't treat your customers like that.
This I can agree with, however asking a company to cover user error is a lot. I wouldn't expect any company to bend over backwards for me in the case of user error.
k4zie OP t1_j201006 wrote
I wasn't asking them to cover the user error, certainly not in a forceful way. I made that suggestion because other vendors have done that in the past. They want their product back. So I offered to exchange it.
I can see that you are very determined in just defending their position, and that's fine. But if you're really being objective, why does the fact that they acted as if it could ONLY be my fault not resonate with you?
As I said to someone else a minute ago, that's the sole reason I posted this. A vendor should not treat their customers like they can only be at fault. Do you honestly think that's unreasonable?
Deadbolt11 t1_j201wh5 wrote
>I made that suggestion because other vendors have done that in the past.
So because company x does y, every company should do y?
>I can see that you are very determined in just defending their position, and that's fine. But if you're really being objective, why does the fact that they acted as if it could ONLY be my fault not resonate with you?
I am being objective based on the evidence available, you're seeing this through very rose colored glasses. You're saying they did x, you're saying they did y, they showed the picture you sent, which very clearly shows a pin stabbed that plastic. You haven't even shown us the exchanges with customer support. We can't be objective as you haven't given us anything to be objective with, we only have your side of the story fed through your bias.
>As I said to someone else a minute ago, that's the sole reason I posted this. A vendor should not treat their customers like they can only be at fault. Do you honestly think that's unreasonable?
You haven't posted anything that supports this statement. Not a screenshot, not a sentence.
okayzimbabwe t1_j206zca wrote
Guaranteed the communication with support is less than desireable to share publicly lmao
k4zie OP t1_j202aup wrote
Ok, you're not being objective. You're just pushing back on me based on assumptions.
Have a good one 👍
Deadbolt11 t1_j202fkr wrote
>Ok, you're not being objective. You're just pushing back on me based on assumptions.
Neither are you
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments