Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Sears Makes Good Despite the Fine Print

Consumer sites, including this one, tend to point out a lot more negative than the positive issues about companies and their practices. This, however, is a story of extraordinary customer service that deserves to be publicly acknowledged.

MrConsumer (aka Edgar, the editor of Mouse Print*) recently needed to replace his 23-year old gas range, fondly nicknamed the “Price is Right stove” because of its one-piece design consisting of a range, oven, and microwave popularized decades ago by that game show. After perusing the ads, he narrowed down the choices to a Sears Kenmore slide-in gas range advertised for about $1000 the last week in December in  the Sears circular.

After calling four stores, MrConsumer finally found a local Sears that stocked the particular stove so he could look at it. It was very important that the range be stainless steel and have a professional look. As it turned out, the store did not have the advertised stove on display, but rather a similar but higher model. To confirm that the advertised stove was identical in appearance to the one in the store, the salesman took MrConsumer to a computer terminal to look at it online. The picture showed that it had stainless steel knobs, a computer control panel with a 0-9 digital keypad, and matte finish grates just like the similar model in the store.  Assured of these specifications, the order was placed for this range:

At this point you might be able to guess what happened next when the stove was delivered on January 25.  The grates were shiny black, making them look cheesy and not very professional.  The electronic controls only had an up/down arrow to change the temperature in five degree increments.  So, if you wanted to go from 300 to 400 degrees, you would have to press the up arrow 20 times.  MrConsumer was very not happy, but since the electrician and plumber were already scheduled, the stove was installed the next day.

Complaining to Sears’ 800 number resulted in a very quick callback from the store manager.  While willing to compensate MrConsumer for having received a lesser digital control panel, she was not so willing to try to obtain the matte finish grates shown both in the store and online.  In part, she pointed to the fine print on the website:

*MOUSE PRINT:

In MrConsumer’s defense, this description was not shown to him in the store, and is not even visible on the same page where the stove is described online. (One has to click a link  “more specifications” to find this. You will also notice it says the knobs are black, when in fact they are stainless.)  Further, this description is contrary to the more prominent magnified picture at the top of the page that clearly showed matte grates, and the accompanying description that said “ professional-look heavy duty cast-iron grates are completely dishwasher-safe.”

Not willing to take “no” for an answer from the local store, MrConsumer sent a factual and polite email to two highly placed executives responsible for major appliances at Sears headquarters. [See the first comment below for the trick to finding such executives.]  He asked for a price adjustment because of the lesser digital display, and requested that Sears provide the matte finish grates as was represented.  

One of the executives actually responded the day after mailing, on a Sunday no less, saying that this was not the type of experience (being shown one thing, and receiving another) that their customers should have to go through.  Within a few days, a person from “executive resolutions” called, acknowledging the wrong stove was pictured on the website.  Remarkably, they offered to replace the stove with the one pictured (a more expensive model by about $250) at no cost, and to even cover the costs of having their plumber do the installation.

Wow. Is that not remarkable customer service, above and beyond expectations?  It almost feels like the clock was turned back several decades when stores really did care about satisfying their customers.  Hats off to Sears for showing that a big company can acknowledge a mistake and bend over backwards to remedy the situation.

(Despite the seeming fairy tale ending to this story, there will be a part two, as MrConsumer’s kitchen is now home to two Sears ranges.  Ironically, in part, it is because more fine print tripped up the company’s best of  intentions.)

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

The Catch in Verizon’s $84.99 Triple Play Deal

Verizon FiOS has been advertising a great package price online for Internet, telephone, and FiOS TV — just $84.99 a month for a year. That is less than most competitors, and many consumers rave about FiOS.

Here is their online animated ad (for which you need Adobe Flash player to view). Click the replay button if the animation has ended.

Did you catch that pop-up disclaimer at the end that was on the screen for less than two seconds? (You can hover over the “legal” button with your mouse to freeze it in place — something we guess most consumers probably wouldn’t know to do.)

*MOUSE PRINT:

$109.99/month for months 13-24, two-yr agrmt req’d plus taxes and fees.

We would venture to say that most consumers didn’t catch the fact that you must sign a two year contract to get this deal, and that the bargain $84.99 price only lasts for the first year. The price then jumps up $25 a month to regular price (apparently) for the second year.

Imagine the customers’ shock when they open their Verizon bill in month 13! And, if they want to cancel at that point, they are in for a second expensive surprise. Also not disclosed in the ad is Verizon’s new $360 early termination penalty (which is evenly pro-rated over the life of the contract).

Mouse Print* invited Verizon to comment on this story, but as of publication time, they had not yet done so. This post will be updated should they respond this week.

As we have repeatedly said, companies need to be more upfront about their pricing in their advertising, so their customers are not hit with unexpected charges.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: The editor of Mouse Print* is a compensated member of Verizon’s Consumer Advisory Board, which advises the company on policy and public issues.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Tide: Why You Get Fewer Loads than Promised

Detergents are sold in bottles that note the number of ounces inside as well as the number of loads of wash the bottle will do.  It turns out that manufacturers have a few tricks up their sleeve to virtually ensure that you don’t get the number of loads the bottles promise.

Trick #1: In the case of 100 ounce Tide, the front of the bottle indicates that you get 64 uses from this product.

 *MOUSE PRINT:

The 64 uses is based on a “medium load”, that is only filling the cap up to line 1, which is roughly one-third full:

Most consumers have big capacity washers and probably don’t do “medium loads” as their normal load, and thus will never get the claimed number of washes for the typical-size loads. Large loads require filling the cap to line 2, and who knows what line 3 is for. Filling the cap to line 2 will only yield approximately 50 uses, rather than 64. Interestingly, line three is the only line that goes completely around the entire inside of the cap, so it is the most visible from any angle, and possibly the one that most people might use.

Trick #2: Related to this, the cap is larger than any load size, so unthinking users who may have been used to products that required you to use a capful of product, will really deplete the bottle quickly. In fact, you will get fewer than 25 loads from the 64 load bottle if you do so. Think this is an accident?

“Take a cap and look at where the lines are—nowhere near the top,” says Adam Lowry, co-founder of San Francisco-based Method. “That’s not accidental. In an extremely mature market like laundry, for established players to grow they have to either steal share or get people to use more,” Mr. Lowry says. “They are trying to dupe people into using more product than they need.” — Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2010

P&G of course denies that its caps are designed to trick users.

Trick #3: Tide defines “load” differently depending on what they are trying to accomplish. Sample packages of Tide Ultra when it first came out were marked “1 Load” and probably did a good job on the average person’s large washload. Large washload? Yes, the amount of detergent in the packet was enough to almost fill their cap to line 2 (see picture below) — for large washloads. So P&G seems to say that one load should be enough to do a large wash when they are trying to impress their customers with a free sample, but they are not putting the equivalent amount of detergent per load in the bottles they sell.

According to the Wall Street Journal, P&G is about to introduce new caps on their various brands of liquid detergent, to make the markings clearer.

For now, just don’t expect to get the promised number of loads if you do normal-sized washes.

Share this story:

 

ADV