Re: Will Rebate Wonders Never Cease?

Jan Alter wrote: 
See below

Your posting method screws up the reply quote so I had to paste it all back in. And since that screws up the quote indenting I've marked yours inside of ----------.



-- Jan Alter bearpuf@xxxxxxxxxxx or jalter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "David Maynard" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:11e5p6utciu4b19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Jan Alter wrote:


Have you only "read" the stories, and never experienced them first hand?



I'm in agreement with you on your point. I've dealt with poor sales
people too many times at this point to count. I was responding to David
Maynard's theory that someone simply screwed up. On that view I am in
complete disagreement. 

I obviously can't 'know' one way or the other but I see no reason to
'presume' an ulterior motive.


I have this radical new theory that companies are actually a collection
of people and that some of them screw up from time to time.


If Sofie had said, "Oh, I see there's a mistake here. I do see that you
sent the proof of purchase flap.

And what makes you think that 'Sofie' has any way to KNOW if you sent it
in other than looking at the data on her monitor that says you didn't? You
think she keeps a 15 ton box of the things sitting there so can look them
up, not to mention so well organized that she could instantaneously find
YOURS even if she did? 

-----------

I know from living awhile and listening to the way people phrase things and
the way the facts stack up in this particular case.
----------


I also know from "living awhile and listening to the way people phrase things" plus how companies set policies and procedures.



----------
When Sofie (Sophie)'s
answer came so quickly and was laid out as to be doing me a service as " As
a one time courtesy because you are a valued customer..." and not asking me
to send further proof that it was sent in the first place I was surprised
because every company I have dealt with for rebates holds the consumer to
the letter of the law the way they have written it out. How do I know? Well
I can't be 100 % but I will generalize; from a time that I sent in a copy
of the UPC label when another company insisted that it wanted the original
for me to get a rebate, and from the many times I've read of others having
gone through this rebate dance and the companies mysteriously rejecting
their claims even though all criteria for the rebates were fulfilled.
------------


You mean from other like minded folk who instantly blame a 'corporate plot' every time something goes awry? And out of how many rebates?

Your reading of something 'sinister' into her 'instant' reply could be explained by a quite rational policy. Mainly that the company has offered you more trust than you're willing to offer in return. I.E. She looks at the screen and sees you are a repeat customer, have claimed you sent it in, and she also notes there is no record of you ever having made a prior similar claim under similar circumstances so, with that record, company policy allows her to amend... And for good reason. Odds are probably good you're telling the truth since it's a 'one time' thing and with the odds in favor of that it's less expensive to risk trusting you, once (and she noted the 'one time' courtesy), than go through the more complex, read costly, mail in and review procedure.

I, of course, can't know for sure but it's imminently rational and good policy for the company on both economic terms and customer relations. Except for the perpetually paranoid conspiratists who see a 'corporate plot' in even instant, painless, resolution in their favor.



---------------
   Is this particular time with Symantic a different deal and Sofie just
trying to be a sweet darling to make it easy? Could be.
----------------



No, my theory is it's policy and she's just following it. And what 'allowed' it was precisely what she said: Your customer record of multiple buys with no indication of prior 'confusions' to raise a red flag. So, as a courtesy to a good customer the company extends it's trust and amends on your word. It's "good business," meaning profitable.


-----------------
I'll give that a 5%
possiblity.
------------------


I give it a 0% because it's absurd to even postulate that Sophie was "just
trying to be a sweet darling" even though I'm sure she is.


-------------------
And if you want to argue this that this is the 5% you go right
ahead and enjoy it.
---------------------


Like most conspiratists you frame the 'only possibilities' to be between an absurdity you invent vs a 'conspiracy'.


-------------------
After you're done go read a newspaper and see the
practices that companies continually come up with to save a buck at the
expense of the consumer. Or for that matter take a poll of how many people
have been burned by not receiving rebates. Of the top of my head I can think
of CompUSA going to court over unfulfilled rebates and Best Buy offering to
come up with the money themselves to pay off people who were not receiving
rebates from the companies whose merchandise they were selling.
------------------


And I can think of lots of other problems but Company A doing a bad thing says nothing about Company B.




Let me correct that little error and I'll get that check right out to
you." But instead her almost immediate response was that she would do me
a favor and update my information so that it showed I had turned in the
proof flap,

You would have preferred she ask you to send in the proof and feed it on
up to the resolution department for a few more weeks of review?


not because I was telling her there was a mistake but as "a one time
courtesy because you are a valued customer".

Of COURSE it was because you were "telling her there was a mistake." The
courtesy was she accepted your word for it right there on the spot and
adjusted the records accordingly. 

   I  see this conclusion as preposterious without her getting approval
from someone else with just my say so.
-----------

You see it as 'preposterous' because that's what you are determined to see.

I see it as plausible because it's good corporate policy and there's nothing 'preposterous' about good policy.




I think it's all a load of crap and this particular rebate house has
every intention of avoiding payment to whoever doesn't respond to the
invalid rebate postcard.


That's because people these days just automatically ASSUME there's some
'devious plot' and don't even bother to consider anything else.

And my evidence, in this case, for saying so is that you have no data
whatsoever as to how many people may have had a 'problem', nor out of how
many rebates, but you had one so, by golly, it's a 'company plot' even
though it was instantly corrected based on nothing more than your 'word'
and without having to send in any 'proof'.


I can appreciate your take that Symantic is attempting to make ammends for an honest error, as from time to time I am an idealist myself. However, in this case I don't think it's probable, by the tone, speed, and phraseology of the response. My point in posting was to see if anyone else may have experienced this event from Symantic along with my take on it.
Although I have probably sent in for more than fifty or more rebates in the last five years and received all but one of them I attempt to be meticulous in each one's preparation. I think of it as a game, in that the company receiving the rebate will look for any flaw in the delivery to form an excuse for not paying out.

I submit that your presupposition of how the 'game' is designed to get you is why you're primed for an instant accusation and so finely honed to even the slightest bipple in the "tone, speed, and phraseology of the response" even though the one issue out of over 50 flawless transactions was resolved in your favor with the most desirable of terms; namely none but your word for it.

I'm meticulous in the preparation too because, humans and the systems they design being what they are, I'm concerned that, sooner or later, someone, or something, is going to make a mistake. Unfortunately, the only one my finely honed system has detected, so far, was mine and my only defense for it is I'm human too.


Believe it or not I'd rather be on your take of the event, but I think this is simply a new way to deny payment. Why on earth do you think these companies offer rebates in the first place instead of giving the consumer a price cut?

Because, for one, a 'price cut' leaves the actual price at the discretion of the seller who might decide, for example, with a $30 'cut' to pass $20 on to the buyer and keep 10. After all, they have their own business analysis and considerations too.

But, more to the point, they provide much more flexibility in business strategy. They can be a 'package' deal, affecting more than one product, and can be worked in conjunction with partner deals. They can be targeted to particular markets, geographical areas, and stores. They have better timing flexibility and are obviously a 'temporary deal' that avoids the buyer angst of 'the price was lower but NOW THEY RAISED IT" when the intent WAS a 'temporary deal' and not a price change. Not to mention what the heck does one do with tons of sales literature, price sheets, discount contracts, web pages, and all the rest for a "price change" that will revert to the original again in 90 days?

Plus, they work.

The biggest problem is when business analysis get preoccupied with, and overly focused on, narrow 'performance' statistics (as Twain noted, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics) seeking to 'improve' individual departmental costs.

Because it's simpler I'll give you an example of a different type, but illustrative of the 'narrow focus' meaning I'm talking about. At one company they hired a particular salesman on a mutually desired low base salary with sales bonus arrangement and it worked like a charm. He was a real go getter and sales, his in particular, skyrocketed. The sales manager then began complaining they were going to have to change the arrangement because his commissions were "costing them a fortune," neglecting to consider that all those commissions came from the increased sales they had made the deal for in the first place so they were also "making a fortune" from the cost it. But, you see, the 'commission budget' was getting out of hand and the accountants were not going to like that one bit. Btw, they did kill the golden goose for that sake of proper budgets and sales suffered accordingly. But at least it all added up right.

The point is, a 'problem' doesn't necessarily mean that the 'game', itself, is designed to get you. It can easily be a mistake, ignorance, or simple stupidity.



.