or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › ReplayTV & Showstopper PVRs › Official Word From Replay
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Word From Replay - Page 2  

post #31 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by avhokie
ReplayTV and CC/RS/CompUSA can argue with each other all they want, but in the end, they sold units for $149 that included activation. Said so on the websites. Said so on the box. Said so in the box. They can't take that back after the sale.
Try and see if you can wrap your head around this.

12/1 (made up date, don't know when this actually happens): DNNA tells retailers that the price structure will change on 12/17. $149 for a 5504, but it will no longer have activation. Please make the necessary changes.

12/17: retailer sells for $149, but does not inform customer there is no longer activation.

Wow that was short.
post #32 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
The argument was that the retailers were informed that there was an upcoming dramatic price change that was to be coupled with changes that would require re-marking the inventory and changing the sales literature. Some of the retailers sold units at the new pricing, before the pricing went into effect, and without making changes to the inventory as required.

Yes, Replay changed the deal and caused confusion. But if the retailers hadn't jumped the gun on the pricing, they might have carried out the second half of the equation without confusing the heck out of their customers.
If this was completely the retailers fault, then ReplayTV should give service to the customers and NOT reimburse the retailers for their mistakes.
post #33 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
Yeah, it's crazy to ask people to pay the actual price of the product instead of giving it away at a loss. Nuts.

Guys, the retailers dropped the ball here too. Try taking it up with them...
EVERY SINGLE INVOLVED PARTY, the retailer, the manufacturer, and the consumer, agreed to the terms being $150 for a unit with 3 years of service.

Offering a product at a loss may be nuts, a consmer agreeing to take that offer is not.

This is not some simple case of a typo in an ad (which doesn't have to be honored) or a typo on a shelf tag (which does). This is the biggest screw up by a manufacturer/retailer that I've ever seen. Forcing the consumer to shoulder the burden of correcting it is not only ridiculous, but illegal.
As I pointed out before, I don't think it'll be worth my time to pursue this legally, even though that would be very easy to do in small claims court. I can return my unit to CC for the full price I paid for it. If I'm not satisfied, that's what I'll do.
post #34 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
The argument was that the retailers were informed that there was an upcoming dramatic price change that was to be coupled with changes that would require re-marking the inventory and changing the sales literature. Some of the retailers sold units at the new pricing, before the pricing went into effect, and without making changes to the inventory as required.

Yes, Replay changed the deal and caused confusion. But if the retailers hadn't jumped the gun on the pricing, they might have carried out the second half of the equation without confusing the heck out of their customers.
Normally such a dispute would be between the customer and the retailer but this is an interesting case because the functionality that is in dispute is solely in the hands of the manufacturer, RTV. Whether or not the service is activated is in the hands of RTV, not the retailer. I can't go back to the retailer and make them provide service - they can't, only RTV can.
post #35 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Try and see if you can wrap your head around this.

12/1 (made up date, don't know when this actually happens): DNNA tells retailers that the price structure will change on 12/17. $149 for a 5504, but it will no longer have activation. Please make the necessary changes.

12/17: retailer sells for $149, but does not inform customer there is no longer activation.

Wow that was short.
Then wrap your head around this:

Retailer sells unit with activation for $149. They paid $x to DNNA, where $x > $149.

DNNA does not refund retailers because they gave out activation.

Customers get activation.

End of story.
post #36 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Try and see if you can wrap your head around this.

12/1 (made up date, don't know when this actually happens): DNNA tells retailers that the price structure will change on 12/17. $149 for a 5504, but it will no longer have activation. Please make the necessary changes.

12/17: retailer sells for $149, but does not inform customer there is no longer activation.

Wow that was short.
Short but also incorrect - unless you saw the memo in question you don't know what DNNA told retailers. In addition please append this to your short list:

12/17 : Replay CSR telling customers who call that $149 price does include 3-year activation.

Now explain to me why its the retailers fault when RTV was giving out the same misinformation as the retailers?
post #37 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Try and see if you can wrap your head around this.

12/1 (made up date, don't know when this actually happens): DNNA tells retailers that the price structure will change on 12/17. $149 for a 5504, but it will no longer have activation. Please make the necessary changes.

12/17: retailer sells for $149, but does not inform customer there is no longer activation.

Wow that was short.
And customers are responsible for all this behind-the-scenes fumbling? Huh?
post #38 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by avhokie
If this was completely the retailers fault, then ReplayTV should give service to the customers and NOT reimburse the retailers for their mistakes.
Damn, that was easy to come up with. I wonder why DNNA could come up with this idea.....
post #39 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Try and see if you can wrap your head around this.

12/1 (made up date, don't know when this actually happens): DNNA tells retailers that the price structure will change on 12/17. $149 for a 5504, but it will no longer have activation. Please make the necessary changes.

12/17: retailer sells for $149, but does not inform customer there is no longer activation.

Wow that was short.
Short, but incorrect. ;)

I'm pretty sure the price change and activation status change was supposed to take effect today (12/22). The problem is that retailers changed the price on 12/17, before the activation status change took place.
post #40 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by JWeavis
Damn, that was easy to come up with. I wonder why DNNA could come up with this idea.....
Because its easier to scr*w over the customers then to try to scr*w over the retailers whose lawyers wont allow it.
post #41 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Try and see if you can wrap your head around this.

12/1 (made up date, don't know when this actually happens): DNNA tells retailers that the price structure will change on 12/17. $149 for a 5504, but it will no longer have activation. Please make the necessary changes.

12/17: retailer sells for $149, but does not inform customer there is no longer activation.

Wow that was short.
See if you can wrap your head around this.
On 12/17 many people from Fat Wallet walked into a CC, called a CSR, read a serial number off of a box and asked if the unit in question had 3 years of service.

Every single CSR said - why yes, silly man, don't you know that ALL 55xx's come with 3 years out of the box? Same information available on Replay's website, same information on CC's.
How again is that the consumer's fault?

Wow, that was short.
Try reading it slowly if you are still confused. :rolleyes:
post #42 of 424
I think it's safe to say we haven't heard the last of this by a long shot. If DNNA's version is correct (the retailers jumped the gun), then the retailers are going to be liable for the activation costs, not the end purchasers. Even if the blame is mixed between DNNA and the retailers, neither can legitimately leave the already-paid customers holding the bag. That's just not going to fly legally, with the terms of sale written all over the boxes.

While this is (now) clearly a mistake, it's not a pricing typo. The sellers can't legally change the terms after the sale, even if they buffooned those terms. There will be more lawyers involved than DNNA's before this is all over (the preceeding is not an endorsement of lawsuits, just an observation)...
post #43 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by avhokie
Then wrap your head around this:

Retailer sells unit with activation for $149. They paid $x to DNNA, where $x > $149.

DNNA does not refund retailers because they gave out activation.

Customers get activation.

End of story.
The retailer does not have the discretion to "give out activation". This is where you have gone wrong. So your example simply isn't valid.

This is what I believe:

If the retailers jumped the gun and changed price on 12/17 when it was really supposed to be 12/22, then customers should get their activation. Retailer loses.

If retailers were correct in changing the price on 12/17, then customers get no activation.
post #44 of 424
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Crrink
If I don't get my way, the unit will go back and I'll be done with ReplayTV - likely for good.
It sounds to me that you weren't interested in buying a Replay at the real price, correct? I mean no offense to you, but I'm not sure how Replay loses by not selling units to people who aren't willing to pay the real price for them?

They certainly lose by having all those units go out the door at (what we believe is) a loss..
post #45 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by Will Collier
If DNNA's version is correct (the retailers jumped the gun), then the retailers are going to be liable for the activation costs, not the end purchasers.
I agree, and DNNA will have to recoup expenses from the retailers NOT the consumers. I think the retailers were aware of this too - case in point, apparently everyone who bought the 5504 from CC online received an email afterwards explaining the new price breakdown. Looks like they were trying to cleap up their own mess... problem is, they were too late.
post #46 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by Crrink
See if you can wrap your head around this.
On 12/17 many people from Fat Wallet walked into a CC, called a CSR, read a serial number off of a box and asked if the unit in question had 3 years of service.

Every single CSR said - why yes, silly man, don't you know that ALL 55xx's come with 3 years out of the box? Same information available on Replay's website, same information on CC's.
How again is that the consumer's fault?

Wow, that was short.
Try reading it slowly if you are still confused. :rolleyes:
Nobody ever laid claim that it was the consumer's fault. Certainly not me. the CSRs are idiots, thats not your fault either. Other people being wrong/stupid != to you being right. Read my above post.
post #47 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
I agree, and DNNA will have to recoup expenses from the retailers NOT the consumers. I think the retailers were aware of this too - case in point, apparently everyone who bought the 5504 from CC online received an email afterwards explaining the new price breakdown. Looks like they were trying to cleap up their own mess... problem is, they were too late.
The other problem is that retailers have more leverage than consumers. If DNNA tries to recoup activation costs from CC, CC might just say "OK, then we won't carry your product any more."
post #48 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
If retailers were correct in changing the price on 12/17, then customers get no activation.
It doesn't matter if they were correct or not, the box and contents CLEARLY offered 3 free years of service. If DNNA was stupid enough to initiate a price decrease without pulling the items off the shelves (or at least explaining to retailers how to properly advertise the new price scheme), it's their fault.

Either way, customers get activation.
post #49 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
And customers are responsible for all this behind-the-scenes fumbling? Huh?
Nope. That is why you get to return your unit for a refund. Somebody f-ed up. This does not imply you deserve anything for your trouble.
post #50 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
It doesn't matter if they were correct or not, the box and contents CLEARLY offered 3 free years of service. If DNNA was stupid enough to initiate a price decrease without pulling the items off the shelves (or at least explaining to retailers how to properly advertise the new price scheme), it's their fault.

Either way, customers get activation.
We might end up seeing some kind of compromise, where all $149 55xx units get one free year of activation, then you'd have to pay some fixed fee to get lifetime service, or go monthly.

Come to think of it, this isn't a bad business model. Give people a year to get hooked on Replay, then make 'em pay. I know there's no way I'd give up my Replay after a year... ;)
post #51 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
It doesn't matter if they were correct or not, the box and contents CLEARLY offered 3 free years of service. If DNNA was stupid enough to initiate a price decrease without pulling the items off the shelves (or at least explaining to retailers how to properly advertise the new price scheme), it's their fault.

Either way, customers get activation.
The point is that DNNA did explain to retailers how to properly do this. The simple fact is, places like CC aren't familiar with selling these sort of items, activation, no activation. It's complicated.

DNNA is probably stupid, that isn't in dispute. But evidence from pu82 suggests that retailers were informed, and simply didnt deliver. You have no evidence to support assertion that the retailers were not informed, while there has been evidence to the contrary.
post #52 of 424
If this truly is the case where RTV told retailers to do X and the retailers did Y which resulted in this chaos, then why isn't RTV going after retailers to eat the activation costs? Their official announcement certainly sounds like they are siding with the retailers on this one.
post #53 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
Nope. That is why you get to return your unit for a refund. Somebody f-ed up. This does not imply you deserve anything for your trouble.
So now there's no accountability? This is America. When somebody makes a mistake, people DO pay for it. That's at the very heart of our legal system.
post #54 of 424
Thread Starter 
I'm still curious to know why people believe they deserve to be "enriched" (ie get service activation that should cost $300 for nothing) when they can be "made whole" by returning the unit to the retailer?

I guess I don't understand the feeling of entitlement. If I buy a computer and they promise that "it will work" and "you will be happy with it", I have 30 days to evaluate those claims for myself, and have the opportunity to get a full refund on all costs. No one here is claiming that any of this was purposeful, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any evidence that this was purposeful. The fact that you can get a full refund seems to me to mitigate the damages.

(Yeah, it's clear that I'm not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of "People's Court" :) )
post #55 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by winter
If this truly is the case where RTV told retailers to do X and the retailers did Y which resulted in this chaos, then why isn't RTV going after retailers to eat the activation costs? Their official announcement certainly sounds like they are siding with the retailers on this one.
Because it isn't clear that this is the case. Like I said earlier, if the retailers were actually supposed to lower the price on 12/17, DNNA is right to come after you. If they were supposed to lower the price on 12/22, then they should be going after the retailer.
post #56 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
The point is that DNNA did explain to retailers how to properly do this. The simple fact is, places like CC aren't familiar with selling these sort of items, activation, no activation. It's complicated.

DNNA is probably stupid, that isn't in dispute. But evidence from pu82 suggests that retailers were informed, and simply didnt deliver. You have no evidence to support assertion that the retailers were not informed, while there has been evidence to the contrary.
Then RTV needs to take this up with its retailers. Its clear that the problem belongs to one or both of them - taking it out on the consumers who agreed to the terms and purchased the product is not the right (or legal IMHO) solution...
post #57 of 424
Not sure where you got your understanding of business and consumer protection laws Ray but you might want to revisit that. This is called fraud -plain and simple. Sell a product that does x then remove x from the product. Doesn't matter how much was paid for it, the box and insert clearly stated 3 years of service. DNNA's CSRs stated that 3 years of service was included as well.
post #58 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by jleavens
It sounds to me that you weren't interested in buying a Replay at the real price, correct? I mean no offense to you, but I'm not sure how Replay loses by not selling units to people who aren't willing to pay the real price for them?

They certainly lose by having all those units go out the door at (what we believe is) a loss..
The real losses are not going to be a straightforward as you seem to think. You are thinking short-term. This fiasco is going to hurt them further down the road when current owners and the people that are affected by their word of mouth opinion decide not to support a company that treats customers this way. Are the people who paid 150 and expected 3 yrs of service getting what they expected, as promised. No they are not. To further the issue, DNNA had been deactivating units that were activated the previous day. This is what worries me most as a current user. If they can just deactivate a unit, what is stopping hem from deactivating the 5040 that has been setting in my HTS for months and require more money to get it back up. If people back down from this issue and don't demand their 3 yrs of service regardless of price paid, then that may be the next step. (If you took that seriously, please reference Jonathon Swift. I was exaggerating to make a point.)

Finally $150 w/ 3 yrs of service is the issue and RTV needs to honor it with out getting the customers involved. They need to deal with CC and RS. And, may I add, it take some nerve to tell someone that received an item as a gift, that they need to find out how much was spent on that item. My Grandmother would flip out if someone told her she need to do that. This would would have been unthought of in past generations, but I guess times have changed.
post #59 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by vivarey
So now there's no accountability? This is America. When somebody makes a mistake, people DO pay for it. That's at the very heart of our legal system.
Haha, that is very clearly not at the heart of our legal system. But that is beside the point. That's just a random comment you threw in to make your post sound better.

There is accountability. CC is going to take your stuff back and give you a refund. They aren't legally required to offer you anything. Now, if they want to offer you a GC for your trouble, they can do so.
post #60 of 424
Quote:
Originally posted by rayw69
The retailer does not have the discretion to "give out activation". This is where you have gone wrong. So your example simply isn't valid.
From everything I've heard, retailers paid some price for each unit that allowed them to sell the units with activation. DNNA told them to sell at a lower price and not include activation, and that the retailer would be credited for the activation fee. If the retailer decided to sell at the lower price with the activation, then DNNA should not credit the retailers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: ReplayTV & Showstopper PVRs
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › ReplayTV & Showstopper PVRs › Official Word From Replay