Scan/XFX DOA product replacement policy

[Saracen]

Don't see a PM option, .....

Unfortunately, you need 15 posts before that activates.

[Joey2oo7]

Unfortunately, you need 15 posts before that activates.

Ah thanks for that, thought i was going blind Let's hope Wesley revisits the thread.

[Richh]

I myself have been working with XFX and our returns dept. We would not put the time into XFX if we did not feel it to be worth it for our customer's and for us.

It's good to know that something is changing Chris, but this really should never have happened in the first place. Sorry to hang you by your own words, but this is just too obvious to ignore...

"A Customer is not simply an invoice but a welcome addition to the Scan family"

Generally I'd agree with that comment 100%. With the exception of this one specific incident, my experience of Scan in general, and especially in terms of customer service, over something like six years, has been never less than excellent. However, in the case of a customer who butts heads with this current XFX "DOA" policy, they don't just become an invoice, they become an interest-free loan. You have the money, they don't have the product they ordered.

Indeed given the nature of the PC market in general, and the graphics card area in particular, keeping hold of their gear for a couple of weeks could easily result in the price of the product they bought being cut (this happened to me, albeit only by virtue of the VAT cut). While it's usually only a few quid, it just rubs salt in the wound to know that while you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs, the price of the thing you bought a fortnight ago just got cheaper.

If you swapped out faulty cards by return, that sort of thing wouldn't be an issue so rather than customers unhappy with their experience, they finish the transaction with warm, swirly feelings about Scan customer service, which makes even occasional buyers that much more likely to shop with you in future.

XFX are one of our Platinum partners

Even less reason to implement such an awkward DOA policy then/all the more reason for them to run in step with the 3XS ethic then, surely? And yes, XFX's support is responsive and intelligent, as well as local. However, in cases where you're dealing with hardware that failed to work out of the box, the customer shouldn't be needing to deal with XFX Support at all. The contract is with Scan, the retailer.

The fact is that XFX is one of our best selling brands. I have factual sales proof to show this and would be part of the reason the problems with XFX cards seem to arise on more occasions than other brands, simply, because more are sold.

So, what you're saying is that the percentage of XFX cards returned is broadly equivalent to other brands? If that is the case, why do(did) they have an RMA policy different to everything else you sell? If they're just as reliable as every other brand, why the perceived need for the exception?

As always we have listened closely to the feedback we have been getting especially and also brought this to the right people at XFX that can make changes.

Good to know, however, something still doesn't make sense here.

Simply dropping a brand is not the correct decision if you use your "head" and understand XFX have the right price, performance UK support and the stock available to meet the demands of our customers,

All understood. However, if XFX's sales volumes are good, and if the reliability of their product is "as per" as any competitive offering, I see even less reason to implement an exceptional RMA policy. To my way of thinking, if I'm Scan, the last thing I'd want to do is implement something that artificially discourages people from a brand I know to be one of my best sellers (and from which I also cop a degree of collateral damaye myself).

If it's a product I only sell two or three of a year, I can to a degree not be too worried about the RMA policy, as on sales volumes that low I'm statistically unlikely to ever get one back, much less see customers discussing multiple instances in my support forum.

However, if it's a product range (or brand) I'm selling 250 of a week, and the failure rate is, say, 1%, that means I'll be seeing about 130 returns a year. If the consequences of the replacement policy for that brand cause a bad taste in customers' mouths, leading some to seek refunds and/or shop elsewhere, I'd do something about that PDQ, and I'd do it off my own bat without waiting for the supplier to agree, because it's good business sense, and because not doing so would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. There's no rocket science involved there, just basic customer relationship management.

Anyway, good to know that highlighting this issue has made a difference - which does, belatedly, earn both Scan and XFX some credit, provided the new policy turns out to be sensible. Would have been better all round tho if this discussion had never been necessary - as I'm sure anyone who's been caught on the wrong side of the current process would agree.