Sad state of affairs at Canon Australia re 1DX

RTPVid wrote in post #16169302
True enough, but these are products designed by humans, manufactured by humans, and customer service is staffed by humans.

Somebody at Canon (Mr. Trestrall?) finally realized it was better to have a happy customer than a "stand on principle" over customer-caused damage v. manufacturing defect and offered to make Mr. Nash whole on the condition that he stop bad-mouthing Canon.

Mr. Nash decided he was enjoying the bad-mouthing too much (or something equally silly, IMO).

Fine. He gets his right to continue to bad-mouth. It only cost him $12,222. Bad decision from a "small business" perspective. Only Mr. Nash can say if it was worth it on a personal / emotional level.
But, in the end, it was his choice.

Oh yeah no doubt about it
He should have taken the offerings
Now its his dimes! literally

Tyreman wrote in post #16169313
Oh yeah no doubt about it
He should have taken the offerings
Now its his dimes! literally

Said another way, standing on principle should not be confused with taking a no-compromise approach to the resolution of an issue. Unless of course we are omnipotent.

iowajim wrote in post #16170991
Said another way, standing on principle should not be confused with taking a no-compromise approach to the resolution of an issue.

That's fine and noble, but not when the legal profession are involved!

Lowner wrote in post #16171846
That's fine and noble, but not when the legal profession are involved!

Which is really towards the heart of the matter, justice vs. law. But I think you miss my point, that a compromise would have been better for the fellow.

iowajim wrote in post #16172050
Which is really towards the heart of the matter, justice vs. law. But I think you miss my point, that a compromise would have been better for the fellow.

I totally agree, Canon seem to have (eventually) been prepared to go the extra mile, but the customer wanted to be awkward, so its at his expense.

Two points:

1- As I read it, the only offer he got from Canon, was made after he had to drag them into the "Tribunal".
this goes back to my main issue with Canon in this (and other) cases, that sometimes the only way in which a loyal customer is able to receive customer support, is via threats or legal action. The offer from Canon is all well and good, and the fact that he did not take the offer at that time is indeed why he is out money. None of this resolves the issue of Canon refusing to take care of the issue or more importantly the customer, prior to his having to elevate the issue.
I do not consider having your feet held to the fire to get satisfaction as "going the extra mile"

2. I'm not familiar with Australian Law, or in particular this "Tribunal" system. If it happens to be anything like the U.S. Arbitration system that we are having foisted upon us by our purchase contracts, this is a rigged stacked deck against the consumer. Consumers virtually can not win in an Arbitration case against a big company. So again, if the Tribunal is similar to US arbitration, Canon wins regardless of what evidence was presented.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16172392
Two points:

1- As I read it, the only offer he got from Canon, was made after he had to drag them into the "Tribunal".
this goes back to my main issue with Canon in this (and other) cases, that sometimes the only way in which a loyal customer is able to receive customer support, is via threats or legal action. The offer from Canon is all well and good, and the fact that he did not take the offer at that time is indeed why he is out money. None of this resolves the issue of Canon refusing to take care of the issue or more importantly the customer, prior to his having to elevate the issue.
I do not consider having your feet held to the fire to get satisfaction as "going the extra mile"

No argument that apparently ("apparently" because we are only getting one side of the story here) Canon needed to be more or less forced to confront the customer satisfaction issue rather than relying on the legal terms of the warranty. However, from the description of the original problem and the description of the service bulletin that much was made of, I don't see how those are related at all. To scratch the sensor would require something a lot more substantial than the small particles that would result from inadequate lubrication.

But, regardless, Canon did eventually come around.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16172392
2. I'm not familiar with Australian Law, or in particular this "Tribunal" system. If it happens to be anything like the U.S. Arbitration system that we are having foisted upon us by our purchase contracts, this is a rigged stacked deck against the consumer. Consumers virtually can not win in an Arbitration case against a big company. So again, if the Tribunal is similar to US arbitration, Canon wins regardless of what evidence was presented.

Which, if true, makes his decision to reject the offer from Canon even more silly from a business perspective. At that point, he just wanted to continue to harangue Canon regardless of the cost. Fine. His choice. Just don't complain about the cost afterward.

On the future of its camera business, Canon points to a ‘sense of a slowdown in China and Europe', adding that its future priority will be on ‘profitability'.

This is Canon's primary focus.

source

auto-clicker wrote in post #16172477
On the future of its camera business, Canon points to a ‘sense of a slowdown in China and Europe', adding that its future priority will be on ‘profitability'.

This is Canon's primary focus.

source

As opposed to focusing on "altruism"? I can't think of any company who makes products to sell to not focus on profitability.

auto-clicker wrote in post #16172477
On the future of its camera business, Canon points to a ‘sense of a slowdown in China and Europe', adding that its future priority will be on ‘profitability'.

This is Canon's primary focus.

source

jwcdds wrote in post #16172499
As opposed to focusing on "altruism"? I can't think of any company who makes products to sell to not focus on profitability.

Didn't you know? Companies that focus on profits are just GREEDY!

Funny how oil companies (for example) are evil and greedy while Apple is good and cool. Which one is more profitable, do you think?

Exxon Profit Margins

Apple Profit Margins

RTPVid wrote in post #16172661
Didn't you know? Companies that focus on profits are just GREEDY!

Funny how oil companies (for example) are evil and greedy while Apple is good and cool. Which one is more profitable, do you think?

Exxon Profit Margins

Apple Profit Margins

Funny thing is that if you REALLY look at Apple's Corporate Responsibility they are one of the worst companies out there. Apple has a big presence here and you don't hear people praising them as an Employer or as a Corporate Citizen.

jwcdds wrote in post #16172499
As opposed to focusing on "altruism"? I can't think of any company who makes products to sell to not focus on profitability.

I'm probably one of the few people you have to lecture on profits but at what cost?
I believe in profit but i also believe in return for it, the service and product should reflect as to why "hat profit was made.

I don't believe a "****ty" product should garner any sort of profit nor should "****ty" service pre/post be taken as rule either.

I took that statement out of the whole article, if you read it to stress, their main focus with no mention of how and by what means.

If it is in fact sending out untested products to the masses with denial of conciences for pure prfit sake then it's a company i would rather not give my money to, no matter how well percieved their products and services may be seen.

This is seemingly a trend over the past years where companies will make you over pay for goods and services...

This was my take on the issue over at FM.


"I think at one time or another we have all had to deal with these issues, which can be very frustrating to say the least.
As a business owner I have dealt with my share. We all want to defend and protect our principals. My closest friend happens to be my attorney. He's a very smart guy. ( Columbia ).
When dealing with these situations, he always says the same thing. " if it's principal you want, write me a check and prepare to spend a minimum of two weeks in court "

You then quickly realize that the prudent thing to do is resolve the issue quickly, get back to work and move on.
This guy should have taken the deal with Canon and gone back to the business of making, not losing money and time."

Al


Quote · Like · 1 member likes this post.

Completely agree. There's a time and place for moral stands and this was never it.