# Should I be annoyed with Adorama... or is it my own dumb fault?



## jdramirez (Dec 8, 2013)

So November 28th Adorama had a deal where you get the following:
Canon T3i and 18-55mm, a 75-300mm a 50mm f/1.8 II, a Slinger Photo Video Bag, a SanDisk 16GB Class 10, a USB 2.0 Secure Digital (SD / SDHC) Reader and a Digital Card Case and a Manfrotto Monopod all for the bargain basement price of $659.

It is a meh deal... not awful... not great. BUT... advertised on the page were the attached images. Notice that the 50mm would be a CRAZY good deal if they sent the 50mm f/1.2L? I thought... hey... maybe if they make one screw up, then they might make two. No... I got the 50mm f/1.8. 

So I sent them Adorama an email on on December 4 and then again on the December 5 which read:

Ya'll sent me a different lens than was pictured. Mind providing me an explanation?

I didn't get a response... and I think that's what I'm annoyed about. They could at least do me the courtesy of saying they screwed up and it wouldn't be practical for them to give me a 50mm L, but hey... maybe they try and make it up to me by not ignoring me. 

So... is it my own stupid fault or did Adorama maybe defraud their customers... just a little bit and I do have the right to be annoyed?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 8, 2013)

I doubt that you would have much luck, a Typo is a typo, and someone who posted the wrong photo is just another form of Typo.
Helen Oster at Adorama will answer your question, but don't expect a $1000 gift.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 8, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I doubt that you would have much luck, a Typo is a typo, and someone who posted the wrong photo is just another form of Typo.
> Helen Oster at Adorama will answer your question, but don't expect a $1000 gift.



So one vote for own dumb fault... actually make that two.


----------



## Richard8971 (Dec 8, 2013)

I know this is not exactly the same thing, but I have had several dealings with Adorama and I have been very pleased with their service.

I bought a battery grip for my 40D (used) and it said it would be shipped with the 'AA' battery magazine. Well when it showed up, the magazine was not included. Now, I would never use the magazine, BUT I did buy it, so I emailed them and explained what happened.

After a couple of days I got an email from Adorama saying that they would investigate the matter. After a bit, they sent me an email saying that I would get the magazine in the mail along with an apology.

I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe that they are people of honor and will do their best to make it right...

D


----------



## Ruined (Dec 8, 2013)

I would say in this case, the text stated it was a 1.8, so that is what you should have expected.

If both the pic AND the text said 1.2, then you'd have a case.

But I think the best you could expect is an apology and/or refund with you sending the gear back.

Not to add insult to injury, but I think that is not the best deal, either.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 8, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> ....... advertised on the page were the attached images. ........ I got the 50mm f/1.8.
> 
> So I sent them Adorama an email on on December 4 and then again on the December 5 which read:
> 
> ...



Please accept my apologies - if you email me directly: [email protected], with your order number, then I will be delighted to check the situation for you.

Regarding the failure of the main Cs Team to respond to your enquiry, please understand that you sent your email during the 5 busiest days of the retail year (and the week ahead is the 2nd busiest). If last year is anything to go by, then email responses will easily be 4 days late.

I am on top of my emails only because I work from home and last week, was working up to 14 hours every day......

I look forward to hearing from you, and to resolving this as quickly as possible.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 8, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > ....... advertised on the page were the attached images. ........ I got the 50mm f/1.8.
> ...


 
Have a happy holiday season, Helen, I know its a time of stress. I'm hoping that business is good, because a healthy industry is good for all of us in the long run, while selling items for little or no profit is a short sighted benefit to buyers that can bite them as dealers fail.


----------



## Gino (Dec 8, 2013)

Last year around this time, Crutchfield had the Canon 6D listed for $899 on their website, with the 6D full specs, photo, and description posted. At that low of a price, I made the purchase right away. The next day Crutchfield sent me an email notifying me that there was an error on their website and they would cancel my order...they referred me to the fine print on their website, which clearly states they are not responsible for honoring errors on their website.

Of course I understood the price was a mistake, and I didn't make a big deal about the situation. As the saying goes, *If it sounds too good to be true (or looks too good to be true in the case of the internet) then it probably is!*


----------



## Skulker (Dec 8, 2013)

So you ordered it thinking that they had made a mistake, and might follow it up with another. That you were quite happy to profit from.

When they did send you the lens you were expecting to get and you got what you were expecting, if not what you were hoping for, you sent them a less than straight forward e-mail asking for an explanation. When you were pretty sure you knew exactly what had happened, and it was what you were expecting anyway.

Then to top it all they didn't promptly reply to your smart e-mail!

So to reply to your thread subject line.

"Should I be annoyed with Adorama" Well I would say only if you really think they have fallen from a high standard you might reasonable expect.

"or is it my own dumb fault?" Well I would say only if you think its unreasonable to try to take advantage of what you think is a mistake. But hey you are proving a point. I'll let you figure out what point it is you are proving, as I see it. ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 8, 2013)

Is it your own *"dumb fault"* ;D

Happy holidays


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 8, 2013)

Reminder - We still ban users for abusive posts and language. There is a lot of stress during the holiday season, but please act like adults.

Thanks and have a happy holiday.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

CR Backup Admin said:


> Reminder - We still ban users for abusive posts and language. There is a lot of stress during the holiday season, but please act like adults.
> 
> Thanks and have a happy holiday.



If you can accept criticism over one's own mistakes... and while there may be a tinge of venom... it isn't entirely misplaced... slings and arrows... outrageous fortune...


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Have a happy holiday season, Helen, I know its a time of stress. I'm hoping that business is good, because a healthy industry is good for all of us in the long run, while selling items for little or no profit is a short sighted benefit to buyers that can bite them as dealers fail.



About 5 years ago I picked up a Canon XS and a 75-300 at a "little to no profit" price point... and as you can see by my signature... I didn't just stop at the Canon XS. Call it a loss leader, call it market share, call it what you will, but it does not mean that discounting is a questionable business practice.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

Gino said:


> Last year around this time, Crutchfield had the Canon 6D listed for $899 on their website, with the 6D full specs, photo, and description posted. At that low of a price, I made the purchase right away. The next day Crutchfield sent me an email notifying me that there was an error on their website and they would cancel my order...they referred me to the fine print on their website, which clearly states they are not responsible for honoring errors on their website.
> 
> Of course I understood the price was a mistake, and I didn't make a big deal about the situation. As the saying goes, *If it sounds too good to be true (or looks too good to be true in the case of the internet) then it probably is!*



I should have simply walked away from the table. I like the line... if you are at the poker table and you are looking around and don't see the mark... it's you.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 9, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I know this is not exactly the same thing, but I have had several dealings with Adorama and I have been very pleased with their service.
> 
> I bought a battery grip for my 40D (used) and it said it would be shipped with the 'AA' battery magazine. Well when it showed up, the magazine was not included. Now, I would never use the magazine, BUT I did buy it, so I emailed them and explained what happened.
> 
> ...



I had a nearly identical experience with Adorama, almost a year ago (12/10/2012). I purchased a used BG-E4 grip for my Canon 5D, and it also arrived without the AA magazine. I didn't plan on using the magazine, either, but I thought it might be helpful to have it, in case I sold the grip later.

I contacted Adorama, and they sent me a new AA magazine; the "good" version with the gold contacts, not the earlier version with silver contacts that had received some bad press from users.

While I was waiting for Adorama to resolve this issue, it occurred to me that I might have to send the grip back for a refund, so I went looking for another used BG-E4. I found one on eBay from a private seller, who was not only including the AA magazine, but also 3 BP-11 batteries, all at a lower price than I had paid to Adorama. So I bought that, and when I received the AA magazine from Adorama, I put that grip up for sale, and sold it for more than I paid Adorama for it.

Anyway, back to the original thread topic, my experience with Adorama of late is that they make good on their mistakes, and the OP should not expect them to deliver a much more expensive lens, when the model was clearly stated in the ad, just because of a blunder in the accompanying photo.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

Skulker said:


> So you ordered it thinking that they had made a mistake, and might follow it up with another. That you were quite happy to profit from.
> 
> When they did send you the lens you were expecting to get and you got what you were expecting, if not what you were hoping for, you sent them a less than straight forward e-mail asking for an explanation. When you were pretty sure you knew exactly what had happened, and it was what you were expecting anyway.
> 
> ...



Price and listing mistakes happen... Walmart recently had pricing issues and had to cancel thousands of orders. They made recompense by cancelling the orders and providing customers with a $10 credit to use online or in store. 

In September United had a glitch and were selling airfares for a fraction of their cost. They elected to honor the sale of the tickets. 
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/united-airlines-accidentally-offers-airfares-nothing-8C11139753

I am not going to apologize for seeing an opportunity which would by to my benefit and making a purchase with the understanding that it may or may not come to fruition.

Around 5.5 years ago (before I got the Canon XS) there was a price mistake by Sears on some crappy entry level Nikon telephoto lens. Rather than selling it for $160, they sold it for $16. I managed to get two and then I sold them which allowed me to get the later that year. Are you seriously suggesting that it is a moral obligation for someone who see's what is likely a pricing mistake for them to notify the company of the same? 

I don't consider my relationship with retailers as adversarial... but rather mutualistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology). There will be times where I will wind up paying more than wholesale for certain items (SD Cards, flash diffusers, bags, etc.) and there are times where I would expect to pay less than wholesale (used/open box items, discontinued gear, or gear that is overstocked with inventory). 

I understand and accept that this wasn't fraud on the part of Adorama (which is a fine company and I have dealt with for a few years and I haven't had any issue with until this matter), but having a photo multiple times on a listing may be a mistake... but it is a knowing mistake which was made in repetition. 

Once would be an accident, twice would be a confirmation of the negligence, and a 3rd time would be fraud. And there wasn't a 3rd time, so I'm not accusing Adorama of that. 

I suppose my annoyance is that someone would actually confuse the 50mm f/1.2L with a 50mm f/1.8 mkii. That... and it wasn't really that good of a deal... so I have gear at a price that I don't really want. So I have to figure that out. 

Let me know if I neglected to address a point... and I'll be happy to respond.


----------



## RunAndGun (Dec 9, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > So you ordered it thinking that they had made a mistake, and might follow it up with another. That you were quite happy to profit from.
> ...



Not to pile on more… But… It clearly stated in print which lens was part of the package and you already admitted you knew it was probably incorrect(the picture of the lens) and were just hoping to capitalize on someones mistake. So now you have equipment that you really didn't want to begin with and the purchase price of said equipment wasn't a good deal anyway. You gambled and lost. That happens thousands (or millions) of times a day in Las Vegas and the house doesn't apologize or give the person their money back.

Incorrect pictures are posted/used all the time. It happens. As a matter of fact I just experienced it tonight looking for a pair of shoes on-line. Amazon has the wrong shoes pictured with the listing(similar style, but basically a model down). Reviews accompanying the shoes noted this, but says that you receive the correct shoes that are listed IN PRINT. In this case they have the less expensive shoes pictured as the more expensive model, but the listing for the less expensive shoes has the more expensive shoes pictured.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 9, 2013)

Gladly, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that the written word would trump the pic, so you got what you paid for. Nice try however. On the other hand, customer service is key, and a letter back with an apology would not have taken any effort. I wouldn't say your "own dumb fault". Do you like the gear?

Happy Holidays.

Scott


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 9, 2013)

From a moral stand-point my own feeling is you acted poorly.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 9, 2013)

I'm in communication with the OP and am in the process of assisting him.

The picture was changed as soon as we became of the error, but maybe it's worth clarifying how an error like this can occur so easilly....

The Adorama website isn't like eBay, ie, we don't take photographs of the gear and then upload them. Manufacturers require consistency in the way their products are displayed by retailers. Therefore they send us the text we have to use, and the pictures come in as a series of codes.
The data entry clerks are not photographers and may not not know one end of a tripod from another... they are there purely to upload the info.
With over 180,000 different product lines on our website, an inadvertent juxtoposition of one number or letter for another, and quite a different beast is on the product page!

That is why we display the following on our website (and acceptance of these terms and conditions are presumed to be understood by the customer before he or she places an order)

_http://www.adorama.com/help/termsAndConditions

Purchaser, by placing an order, makes an offer to purchase pursuant to these terms and conditions, which offer, if accepted by Adorama Camera, is accepted within the State of New York, and purchaser consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the courts of the State of New York for the limited purpose of dispute arising between the parties resulting from this transaction and agrees that the laws of the State of New York shall apply.

By opening or using a product purchased from Adorama, the purchaser agrees to be bound by the term and conditions of sale as set forth below. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of sale, please ship the product back to Adorama unopened within 5 days of receipt for a full refund (less shipping and handling charges).

Adorama Camera makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, and none shall be implied by law.

Final determination of suitability of any item sold for the use contemplated by purchaser is the sole responsibility of the purchaser, and Seller shall have no responsibility in connection with such determination.

Adorama Camera will not be responsible for any consequential or incidental damages resulting from the sale, non-delivery, use or improper function of any equipment purchased from us. The responsibility, if any is imposed, of Adorama in regard to any item purchased shall be limited to the monetary value of the merchandise purchased.

Adorama.com is intended to be a guide only. Some item illustrations are for display purposes only, may not be exact, and are not necessarily included in the purchase price. Adorama is not responsible for typographical or pictorial errors, and specifications may change without notice.

All items offered for sale are subject to availability. Many items on our Web site or catalog site come from various sources. Adorama is, therefore, bound to fluctuating currency exchange rates, making it necessary to occasionally increase prices. In addition, some domestic and overseas products may be discontinued without our prior knowledge. Should this apply to your order, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation.

We make every effort to provide you with an error-free Web site. However, in the event there is a misprint, we reserve the right to correct copy or pricing to reflect the actual current status._

At any other time of the year I hope that the CS Department would have responded more quickly to the OP's email. However, this IS the crazy time for retailers. Taking on additional staff isn't an easy option, either, because our callers often slam us if the poor 'seasonal' girl on the end of the 'phone isn't completely familiar with any particular product or its function!


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... and as a mere foreigner I'd like to add that at first I found it to be a bit creepy for some retailer PR agents to scan the forums and pick up critical threads, but after looking at a couple of them I have to say you U.S. boys should be lucky to have such online shops over there, in Germany if something doesn't work out you're out of options very quickly.



PLEASE don't call me PR!!!

My post was developed in 2007 as a direct response to the increasing desire by customers to use a variety of Social Media platforms to communicate with retailers - and each other.

I act as an Independent Advocate on behalf of Adorama customers, representing Adorama's presence on social network sites (eg Twitter, Facebook, Google + and Linked In), shopping sites and newsgroups; Photography Blogs and Forums - across the globe

With a diverse background in Law, Journalism and Mental Health, and experience as an Expert Witness in the fields of Workplace Stress and Bullying, I aim to provide a rapid response for customers seeking advice and / or support in relation to their purchases - investigating and resolving complaints and concerns that customers have been unable to address through regular customer service channels. 


Any customer with an enquiry, query or complaint regarding an order - or any aspect of service from Adorama, is also most welcome to contact me directly: [email protected]


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> PLEASE don't call me PR!!!



Well, that's what you get for writing something nice  ... I'm not up to the correct obvious terms obviously as you _relate_ to the _public_ - otherwise you'd just write a PM to the op - but maybe PR is something different entirely and is considered deprecating since it made you post your qualifications ... so sorry for that.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Well, that's what you get for writing something nice  ... I'm not up to the correct obvious terms obviously as you _relate_ to the _public_ - otherwise you'd just write a PM to the op - but maybe PR is something different entirely and is considered deprecating since it made you post your qualifications ... so sorry for that.



Sorry, don't mean to be spiky. But PR generally refers to someone who is employed to promote a business, and to encourage the public to support that business.

My job is less PR for Adorama, than it is customer advocacy - and I always post publically for 100% transparency - and so other customers can see that if they also experience issues of any kind, that I'm here to help.

I believe that my professional background is important, because it highlights my understanding that human relationships and expectations - and failings - are an integral part of any transaction, even those which are related to commerce.


----------



## BoneDoc (Dec 9, 2013)

Helen,

Your title is aptly named "Customer Service Ambassador" because you do a very good job at it. We, as a community are fortunate that we have someone like you looking out for us.

I personally have very little sympathy for OP since it's quite obvious that this was an honest mistake anyway, and I wouldn't have expected anything more than a free return of merchandise. It's great to be looking at deals, but never at the expense of "screwing" someone else over .

Merry Christmas everyone .

Josh


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 9, 2013)

Hi folks.
I don't know how it works throughout the world, but in the UK the seller can decline a sale. For instance I was looking for an angle grinder (for my other hobby!). I found one at a large national DIY retail chain. 
It was listed on one shelf for about half what it was on another. I took one to the check out fully aware that they might not honour the price, but I wanted one anyway. The till showed the higher price, but I queried it and manager was called. They honoured the price but while I was being served the product was removed from sale, shelf labels changed and then the product returned to sale. 
I had no qualms about taking advantage of this large chain as I was spending plenty of money with them over preceding and following weeks.
I would however decline to take the same advantage of a single branch or even multi branch local retailer. 
I hope that the OP manages to find new homes for his "not so great purchase" made on a whim.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 9, 2013)

> I am not going to apologize for seeing an opportunity which would by to my benefit


No, I don't suppose that you would...just as you wouldn't try to return a lost wallet. I would hope, however, that you are in the minority, in regard to your ethical value system. Profiting from someone's mistakes indicates a very low self worth.
From a personal point of view, I've had the pleasure of dealing with Helen Oster and have found her professionalism to be above reproach.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

chauncey said:


> > I am not going to apologize for seeing an opportunity which would by to my benefit
> 
> 
> No, I don't suppose that you would...just as you wouldn't try to return a lost wallet.



I admit I fail to see this connection, there is a difference between criminal gain in damage to another individual and exploiting opportunities on a free market in accordance with the law - though I admit I often am not delighted by both.



 jdramirez said:


> I am not going to apologize for seeing an opportunity which would by to my benefit and making a purchase with the understanding that it may or may not come to fruition.



Maybe a look over the big pond helps ... in Germany after many trials (it's not the anglo-saxon law system) it is generally ruled that an offer is invalid if it was *obviously* a mistake on the seller's side like buying a new Ferrari for €1 instead of €1000000. In your case, the offer was too god to be true, so it wasn't.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

chauncey said:


> > I am not going to apologize for seeing an opportunity which would by to my benefit
> 
> 
> No, I don't suppose that you would...just as you wouldn't try to return a lost wallet. I would hope, however, that you are in the minority, in regard to your ethical value system. Profiting from someone's mistakes indicates a very low self worth.
> From a personal point of view, I've had the pleasure of dealing with Helen Oster and have found her professionalism to be above reproach.



Am I pushing over baby carriages while I'm rushing to pick up the wallet? 

Good Lord. I worked in retail... sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi folks.
> I don't know how it works throughout the world, but in the UK the seller can decline a sale. For instance I was looking for an angle grinder (for my other hobby!). I found one at a large national DIY retail chain.
> It was listed on one shelf for about half what it was on another. I took one to the check out fully aware that they might not honour the price, but I wanted one anyway. The till showed the higher price, but I queried it and manager was called. They honoured the price but while I was being served the product was removed from sale, shelf labels changed and then the product returned to sale.
> I had no qualms about taking advantage of this large chain as I was spending plenty of money with them over preceding and following weeks.
> ...



That's about what we do in the states. There would be a mistake listed in an advertisement and we would put up signs to indicate that it was a mistake and we apologize for the inconvenience. 

But if we didn't catch the mistake we did honor the error... and then printed up a sign.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 9, 2013)

In the US, laws relating to Internet sales are not the same as for retail stores: http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/354/vol1_no1_art2.pdf


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 9, 2013)

You picked up all that gear for only $723? Happy Days! I would have asked the question, too. But maybe with a smiley face at the end to make them aware that you've picked them up on an obvious mistake and that I wasn't _too_ serious.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> You picked up all that gear for only $723? Happy Days! I would have asked the question, too. But maybe with a smiley face at the end to make them aware that you've picked them up on an obvious mistake and that I wasn't _too_ serious.



I don't like emoticons. I know it is a necessary evil, but if a 13 year old girl uses it... 

But here we go.
   ;D  8)   :-[ :-X :-* :'(


----------



## emag (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Helen Oster said:
> 
> 
> > PLEASE don't call me PR!!!
> ...


Helen is to PR what Magic Lantern developers are to hackers. No snark intended or implied, I raise a virtual toast to both of you in sincere appreciation of your efforts.


----------



## DaveMiko (Dec 9, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> So November 28th Adorama had a deal where you get the following:
> Canon T3i and 18-55mm, a 75-300mm a 50mm f/1.8 II, a Slinger Photo Video Bag, a SanDisk 16GB Class 10, a USB 2.0 Secure Digital (SD / SDHC) Reader and a Digital Card Case and a Manfrotto Monopod all for the bargain basement price of $659.
> 
> It is a meh deal... not awful... not great. BUT... advertised on the page were the attached images. Notice that the 50mm would be a CRAZY good deal if they sent the 50mm f/1.2L? I thought... hey... maybe if they make one screw up, then they might make two. No... I got the 50mm f/1.8.
> ...



Don't buy electronic equipment online.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 9, 2013)

It seems that lots of posters here have never worked in retail, and therefore do not know how some "customers" act.

"Morals" never even enters the thought process, it is always about getting something for nothing... or pitching a fit at the cash register until they get what they want.

Not directed at the OP, just a thought after going through this discussion.

Props to Helen for even entertaining a discussion over what amounts to a print error.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Helen Oster said:
> 
> 
> > PLEASE don't call me PR!!!
> ...



Nevertheless, Helen does end up indirectly providing the best imaginable PR. Adorama, and its customers, are lucky to have her. (And she's every bit as helpful to those who don't complain in public beforehand.)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 9, 2013)

"Some items may not be as pictured"

"Picture may show optional accessories"

"Not as illustrated"

"Anorexic supermodel not included"

When I see an an add, it is the picture which captures my eye, but it is the text that I read to find out exactly what is offered. You NEVER believe the images in an add.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > So November 28th Adorama had a deal where you get the following:
> ...



It is a mix bag. At my local camera store they sell generic accessories for ten times what you would pay on eBay or Amazon. 

But returns are easier I have bought used gear online and I think that is a much bigger risk than buying new stuff...


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 9, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> It seems that lots of posters here have never worked in retail, and therefore do not know how some "customers" act.
> 
> "Morals" never even enters the thought process, it is always about getting something for nothing... or pitching a fit at the cash register until they get what they want.
> 
> ...



When I worked retail... I didn't have any bad customers... there were people who wasted your time, but no one who threw a fit.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 9, 2013)

chauncey said:


> From a personal point of view, I've had the pleasure of dealing with Helen Oster and have found her professionalism to be above reproach.





BoneDoc said:


> Helen,
> 
> Your title is aptly named "Customer Service Ambassador" because you do a very good job at it. We, as a community are fortunate that we have someone like you looking out for us.





sdsr said:


> emag said:
> 
> 
> > Helen is to PR what Magic Lantern developers are to hackers.......
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Helen Oster said:
> 
> 
> > PLEASE don't call me PR!!!
> ...


Helen has helped CR members many times on this web site, and on many other forums, just as Henru Posner has for B&H. They both take buyer issues seriously and see that fixes get made and that sales people get educated. 

I find that Helen and Henry's presence on the forums when needed is invaluable. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=search2

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=search2


----------



## dstppy (Dec 9, 2013)

+1 for dumb fault (for expecting anything other than one describes, sometimes, you have to swing at the ball either way  )
+1 for done well with Adorama

I'm actually of the opinion that I like vendors/manufacturers that engage in a public forum; it takes guts because you run the risk of taking flak, even if nothing is wrong. (TWM Performance, for example, won't reply even when they are a sponsor ;D -- some people take every chance to mention that fact :

I've seen tech-support reply to bad reviews (in comments) on Amazon trying to rectify technical problems. 

In the end, nothing and no company will be distinct except for how it treats it's customers.


----------



## Skulker (Dec 9, 2013)

CR Backup Admin said:


> Reminder - We still ban users for abusive posts and language. There is a lot of stress during the holiday season, but please act like adults.
> 
> Thanks and have a happy holiday.



Blimming good job I didn't say what I was thinking then ;D


----------



## Skulker (Dec 9, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> ....... so I have gear at a price that I don't really want. So I have to figure that out. ........
> 
> Let me know if I neglected to address a point... and I'll be happy to respond.



As Homer would say "Dohh" Lesson learned?

Don't worry your response was far more detailed than I was expecting. Although to be honest I haven't read it. ;D No offence intended.


----------



## rporterfield (Dec 10, 2013)

Had both the picture and the description matched, you might have had a case. But, since the description had the correct items listed, you should have at least called and double checked what came in the kit before you ordered. Since you didn't, I cannot sympathize with you and therefore I vote that it was your own fault. I won't even say dumb, because I think you knew what was going to happen even before you submitted the order.


----------



## chas1113 (Dec 10, 2013)

In October, I ordered a refurb 7D body from Adorama. It came in two days and was perfect. I took a half-dozen shots, pulled them up on screen and realized I would never be happy with the noise. I called Adorama and apologized and requested a return. They not only didn't question my decision, they gave me an RMA and even paid for the return shipping. Incredible customer service.

On the other hand, I recently purchased an "advertised" EF 35mm f/2 IS through the Canon Direct Store at the "too-good-to-be-true" price of $245. Thinking they had mistakenly advertised the wrong lens, but hoping for the best, I waited with baited breath for the lens to arrive. Sure enough, it was the EF 35mm f/2. I called them out on the phone after the rep admitted they had been "caught" before. He even admitted that he thought that mistake had been fixed...I didn't expect them to honor their mistake, but demanded they pay for the return shipping, which they did.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> In October, I ordered a refurb 7D body from Adorama. It came in two days and was perfect. I took a half-dozen shots, pulled them up on screen and realized I would never be happy with the noise. I called Adorama and apologized and requested a return. They not only didn't question my decision, they gave me an RMA and even paid for the return shipping. Incredible customer service.
> 
> On the other hand, I recently purchased an "advertised" EF 35mm f/2 IS through the Canon Direct Store at the "too-good-to-be-true" price of $245. Thinking they had mistakenly advertised the wrong lens, but hoping for the best, I waited with baited breath for the lens to arrive. Sure enough, it was the EF 35mm f/2. I called them out on the phone after the rep admitted they had been "caught" before. He even admitted that he thought that mistake had been fixed...I didn't expect them to honor their mistake, but demanded they pay for the return shipping, which they did.



I've seen on the Canon refurb site have a picture the 70-200mm f2.8L is (could've been the mkii) on the page for the 70-200 f2.8L usm.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2013)

The OP seemed quite aware that the text in the ad was correct and the photo was incorrect. Nonetheless, they hoped to take advantage and cause the company to lose a lot of money by providing him a much more expensive lens. They seem to have no moral qualms about this - which is a shame. I wonder if this transaction had taken place in the store dealing directly with real people if they would feel the same. Does the impersonal nature of purchasing online make us forget basic ethics?

If you went to a store and looked at both lenses, bought the cheaper lens, then when you got home found out that they had put the wrong lens in the box - the "L" lens - would you have kept it or returned it? The answer when purchased in person seems obvious. The "online" answer should be the same, in my opinion.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

dak723 said:


> The OP seemed quite aware that the text in the ad was correct and the photo was incorrect. Nonetheless, they hoped to take advantage and cause the company to lose a lot of money by providing him a much more expensive lens. They seem to have no moral qualms about this - which is a shame. I wonder if this transaction had taken place in the store dealing directly with real people if they would feel the same. Does the impersonal nature of purchasing online make us forget basic ethics?
> 
> If you went to a store and looked at both lenses, bought the cheaper lens, then when you got home found out that they had put the wrong lens in the box - the "L" lens - would you have kept it or returned it? The answer when purchased in person seems obvious. The "online" answer should be the same, in my opinion.



First of all... and this seems to be a serious misinterpretation of my original post, but I was annoyed that I hadn't received a response from Adorama. Not that they sent me the cheaper lens. I didn't receive an automatic response indicating that my question was received and I should expect a response within X amount of time. 

Second, I worked in retail part time for mostly shits and gigs as a commissioned sales man. The more profit in the product, the more I would make. I quite honestly made every effort to save the customer every dime possible and I didn't feel as though I was betraying the trust of the company I worked for. I simply felt that giving the customer a great deal was more important than the company making more of a profit. 

I suppose I take the same "immoral" attitude when I'm the customer. Regardless of whether the purchase occurred online or in person, I would have acted in much the same way. But after receiving the lessor lens, I would have returned the items. As it was an online purchase I was at the mercy of the customer service department... which as I may remind you (and as defended by Helen), was not an immediate response. 

As for the surprise L in the bag... I haven't really thought about it. I have returned wallets, I have found money on the ground and provided to the customer service departments of stores, I've helped old ladies walk across icy pathways... well... she wasn't that old... but still.


----------



## chas1113 (Dec 10, 2013)

dak723 said:


> The OP seemed quite aware that the text in the ad was correct and the photo was incorrect. Nonetheless, they hoped to take advantage and cause the company to lose a lot of money by providing him a much more expensive lens. They seem to have no moral qualms about this - which is a shame. I wonder if this transaction had taken place in the store dealing directly with real people if they would feel the same. Does the impersonal nature of purchasing online make us forget basic ethics?
> 
> If you went to a store and looked at both lenses, bought the cheaper lens, then when you got home found out that they had put the wrong lens in the box - the "L" lens - would you have kept it or returned it? The answer when purchased in person seems obvious. The "online" answer should be the same, in my opinion.



BS. I worked in the publishing industry for most of my life. We had a concept called "make good" ... if you screwed up, you made it good. Back in the bad ole' days, an advertisement was proofed by several different agencies (I can't tell you how many times mistakes were caught on press). Now, nothing "online" gets proofed properly (look at most forum entries, mine included). If you "put it out there" erroneously be prepared to honor your offer. And the flip side of _caveat emptor_ (let-the-buyer-beware) is, let the buyer take advantage of false or misleading advertising. You have a moral obligation to; that way the advertiser learns from his mistakes.


----------



## sanj (Dec 10, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ... and as a mere foreigner I'd like to add that at first I found it to be a bit creepy for some retailer PR agents to scan the forums and pick up critical threads, but after looking at a couple of them I have to say you U.S. boys should be lucky to have such online shops over there, in Germany if something doesn't work out you're out of options very quickly.
> ...



You may be of the above you describe. But it is all too lengthy. I think shorter and to the point ROCK STAR describes you better.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 10, 2013)

sanj said:
 

> Helen Oster said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


More to the point, everyone in the company who is visible to the public is involved in PR.... With some it is the primary focus of the job, with others it is a side effect, but all public contact has the ability to affect the image.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 10, 2013)

dak723 said:


> The OP seemed quite aware that the text in the ad was correct and the photo was incorrect. Nonetheless, they hoped to take advantage and cause the company to lose a lot of money by providing him a much more expensive lens. They seem to have no moral qualms about this - which is a shame. I wonder if this transaction had taken place in the store dealing directly with real people if they would feel the same. Does the impersonal nature of purchasing online make us forget basic ethics?
> 
> If you went to a store and looked at both lenses, bought the cheaper lens, then when you got home found out that they had put the wrong lens in the box - the "L" lens - would you have kept it or returned it? The answer when purchased in person seems obvious. The "online" answer should be the same, in my opinion.



My reaction would have been to assume that the picture was in error. If I were to go ahead and order the product I would have informed them that the picture was wrong....

Was there, anywhere in the add or website, the standard "items may not be as pictured" clause.... If so; sorry, no leg to stand on.....


----------



## Ruined (Dec 10, 2013)

Why was this thread created in the first place? To attempt to pressure Adorama to giving out free stuff via public forum passive aggressive bad PR? I don't get it.

If it were me, I just would have asked them to pay return shipping if I didn't want it since they didn't send me what was pictured. Anything more than that is really stretching it IMO, not much of a debate.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 10, 2013)

sanj said:


> You may be of the above you describe. But it is all too lengthy. I think shorter and to the point ROCK STAR describes you better.



:-* :-* :-*


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 10, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Was there, anywhere in the add or website, the standard "items may not be as pictured" clause.... If so; sorry, no leg to stand on.....



http://www.adorama.com/help/termsAndConditions

By opening or using a product purchased from Adorama, the purchaser agrees to be bound by the term and conditions of sale as set forth below. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of sale, please ship the product back to Adorama unopened within 5 days of receipt for a full refund (less shipping and handling charges).

Adorama Camera makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, and none shall be implied by law.

Final determination of suitability of any item sold for the use contemplated by purchaser is the sole responsibility of the purchaser, and Seller shall have no responsibility in connection with such determination.

Adorama Camera will not be responsible for any consequential or incidental damages resulting from the sale, non-delivery, use or improper function of any equipment purchased from us. The responsibility, if any is imposed, of Adorama in regard to any item purchased shall be limited to the monetary value of the merchandise purchased.

Adorama.com is intended to be a guide only. Some item illustrations are for display purposes only, may not be exact, and are not necessarily included in the purchase price. Adorama is not responsible for typographical or pictorial errors, and specifications may change without notice.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 10, 2013)

Ruined said:


> .....I just would have asked them to pay return shipping if I didn't want it since they didn't send me what was pictured.



I have already requested a pre-paid label to be emailed to the OP


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > .....I just would have asked them to pay return shipping if I didn't want it since they didn't send me what was pictured.
> ...



That she did... so the customer service issue has been resolved... but the moral/ethical issue appears to still be in play.


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> ... but the moral/ethical issue appears to still be in play.



It does? I also sent you a $10 coupon code by way of an apology for any disappointment caused - even though it states on our website that:


Terms & Conditions
Purchaser, by placing an order, makes an offer to purchase pursuant to these terms and conditions, which offer, if accepted by Adorama Camera, is accepted within the State of New York, .....Adorama.com is intended to be a guide only. Some item illustrations are for display purposes only, may not be exact, and are not necessarily included in the purchase price. *Adorama is not responsible for typographical or pictorial errors,* and specifications may change without notice.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > ... but the moral/ethical issue appears to still be in play.
> ...


Nope... not referring to adorama... evidently you missed all the posts that question my moral compass or the lack there of. 

I kinda want to watch Scarface now... thre whole scene in the restaurant where Tony says... I'm the bad guy...


----------



## Helen Oster (Dec 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Nope... not referring to adorama... evidently you missed all the posts that question my moral compass or the lack there of.
> 
> I kinda want to watch Scarface now... thre whole scene in the restaurant where Tony says... I'm the bad guy...



aaah... my apologies. I thought you were referring to Adorama's morality - or lack of it!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I kinda want to watch Scarface now... thre whole scene in the restaurant where Tony says... I'm the bad guy...



But just like in Scarface, being the bad guy pays: $10 for spotting a mistake on a website maybe is not much, but Tony also started off smalltime...


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I kinda want to watch Scarface now... thre whole scene in the restaurant where Tony says... I'm the bad guy...
> ...



Yes... and I learned not to spurn Columbians... so I feel as though I might not die in a hail of gunfire.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 10, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > ... but the moral/ethical issue appears to still be in play.
> ...



hi all, just to say I think the guy was trying,to scam them.

however I don't agree that just by putting a general clause that a company should,be able to get,off Scott free.

is this,case there was one and one error so its a wash.

how ever if a copy puts a product up for the wrong price they should mot be able,to cancel there order because they made a mistake, sorry that's your business loss. That's why you have e&o insurance.

there is too much sorry not my fault these days.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

Helen Oster said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Nope... not referring to adorama... evidently you missed all the posts that question my moral compass or the lack there of.
> ...



My favorite course in college was business ethics... and it was tought by a communist... so it is a miracle I managed to getman A.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Have a happy holiday season, Helen, I know its a time of stress. I'm hoping that business is good, because a healthy industry is good for all of us in the long run, while selling items for little or no profit is a short sighted benefit to buyers that can bite them as dealers fail.
> ...


 
I agree, just commenting to the affect that times are tough and profit margins are thin for everyone.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about you, I'm kinda neutral on the whole issue, I did not read that you were trying to rip off anyone, or at least I did not take it that way. Obviously, they are not going to give you a "L" lens, but I did not think that you actually expected one.

I do see a number of ads on craigslist where the seller grabbed a photo of a "L" equivalent, not knowing the difference. I've little sympathy for them.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 10, 2013)

I meant to post this a few days ago... but there are levels of questionable behavior on the part of the consumer.
If I make a hierarchy, I think most of y'all would agree.

Customer walls into a store, pulls a gun, demands cash from the register, the safe, and a nifty fifty.

Worse than

Customer going into a store, and slipping a lens into their bag and walking out.

Worse than

Customer buying two lenses. And returning the cheaper lens in the more expensive lens box and getting the refund from a negligent or incompetent sales associate.

Worse than

Using coupons for another product to receive a discounted lens.

Worse than

Seeing a misprint and seeing if the retailer will honor the error.

Worse than

Paying full retail price.... actually... that is a pretty bad transgression in my book... up there with the gun toting customer and the shop lifter.





WPJ said:


> Helen Oster said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


----------



## WPJ (Dec 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I meant to post this a few days ago... but there are levels of questionable behavior on the part of the consumer.
> If I make a hierarchy, I think most of y'all would agree.
> 
> Customer walls into a store, pulls a gun, demands cash from the register, the safe, and a nifty fifty.
> ...



just to be clear I'm not saying the retailer has to eat the cost of a typo all week, if o go in and say I want the 200-400 for 1299 as advertised, I should get it for that per there add.

now if I go in and I see they have posted a correction stating they had a wrong price her they owned the mistake

they corrected the issue and let you know. Now mind you the first guy in should get the lens for the advertised price until it was corrected.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 11, 2013)

dak723 said:


> If you went to a store and looked at both lenses, bought the cheaper lens, then when you got home found out that they had put the wrong lens in the box - the "L" lens - would you have kept it or returned it? The answer when purchased in person seems obvious. The "online" answer should be the same, in my opinion.



Not exactly the same situation... but it seems apropos to fill you in. So a company I bought something from online mailed out my order and I received it and the credit card info was evidently screwed up. They asked that I fix it so they could actually charge me for what I had already received.... oh... lo and behold... I did. So rather than ignoring their request I did the honorable thing. Go figure?

So how much was it you ask... $300 so not exactly an L, but it is a chunk of change.


----------

