Re: B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- From: Troy Yamaguchi <troy_yamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 16:21:04 -0400
henryp wrote:
On May 14, 8:13 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
A few years ago I wrote about B&H mispacking a new US$1,300 80-200 f/2.8
lens.
Now, they mispacked a Nikon glass film holder (US$230) (For a scanner).
Thank you for your order and your feedback.
Did the product arrive damaged? If so, we will replace it. If not, and
I presume from your message it arrived completely unscathed, it shows
that, appearance aside, the packaging employed was more than adequate.
The purpose of our packing is to hold the internal manufacturer's
package in one place so it does not swim around inside the outer
shipping carton. When products are delivered to us, they're usually
packed side-by-side perhaps six or twelve (or whatever) to a carton
with no padding between the product's box and the shipping carton
whatsoever.
While I appreciate how the appearance can influence your perception,
the fact is we ship thousands of packages daily and
99.999999999999999% arrive completely intact and unscathed. Thanks
again for your order and this feedback.
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video, Inc.
Please add my name to the list of satisfied customers? I never had a damaged package or one that was not properly packed. Keep up the good work.
.
- References:
- B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- From: henryp
- B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- Prev by Date: Re: B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- Next by Date: Re: B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- Previous by thread: Re: B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- Next by thread: Re: B&H fail the "packing test" - again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|