I was at the guitar store yesterday. A concerned individual was asking, "Is this bag under warranty?"
He was pointing to a guitar bag giving way at the seams & part of his son's Epiphone Les Paul guitar was popping out. The sales person replied there's no warranty given to any bags as these are expendables, but the individual insisted it was barely a week old.
Well, sir... regardless if that bag is a day old, it's an expendable item, prone to wear & tear, meant to be replaced at the end of its good life, not repaired or exchanged.
Time & again, I am exposed to such encounters which highlighted ignorance. I'm not marginalizing such people- they are not equipment-inclined to begin with, just concerned parents trying to care for their charges but their insistence at times, might be their undoing. Parents in guitar stores tend to behave as such.
7 comments:
as them to buy MONO bags instead :)
i guess mono bags have some "limited" warranty
*ask
"oh, what about the packaging box, is it under warranty too?" ... hahaha... i think i saw someone selling a Fender box sometime ago. ~1mb
"Well, sir... regardless if that bag is a day old, it's an expendable item, prone to wear & tear, meant to be replaced at the end of its good life, not repaired or exchanged."
I have to disagree at this point. I know what you mean, but when buying a new bag, i at least will assume the bag will hold together so that it actually can protect my gear when the time comes. Even a cheap bag should hold together at least a few days, and a more expensive bag should be fine for a lot longer (if not abused). If the bag breaks up before it even sees the tear and wear that it is bought for, there is definitely something wrong with it (qc error, manufacturing fault), and should be repaired or replaced by the seller (my opinion and the law were i live).
Hope my writing does not offend, just trying to show a different pov :)
the law is not much different here :-) we expect a good to be of a certain quality to fulfill its service worth- we all want that. but if a product gives way because it doesn't perform like its peers should, then it shouldn't be deemed defective UNLESS latent defects are detected- no contest here.
it's rather unfortunate that performance standards (not performance obligations) fall on the bilid-side of the law. too many of us equate higher prices with higher durability standards & would get terribly upset if this wasn't the case. we would even want someone to be accountable for it. he he...
this isn't a retort in any way, just saying that we get emotional when things break down, regardless of the situation.
That is so true. When something breaks down, its not something we have been looking forward to, and it hurts more when the product is new and our expectations are not met.
"too many of us equate higher prices with higher durability standards & would get terribly upset if this wasn't the case."
I think it has to do with this: If we are not paying more for the name, and more for the durability, why did we pay more for if there would be a cheaper product with same specs? We think we have been riped off, just the same when we only get the name and we thought that the name would bring us a better product...
So when we pay more (compared to a similar product), we should know in advance if we are paying for the name, the quality or the features. Sometimes it can be hard to know these things, but those who have internet should use it :) Reviews are a good way to get a more realistic expectation on a product.
the average consumer rely too much on the name IMO. they don't get to know the product per se before committing to buy. if Brand X fails to deliver because it's supposed to be the famous Brand X, the buyer blames... most likely, the seller. it gets complicated when it's Brand X, brand new & it fails. he he...
Post a Comment