Sole Distributors versus the Dealer Network
That's true Frank, trying to do it through dealers and direct is always a mistake. I think in a sense Urban Mover may not be on the right lines by using online dealers as well as local ones, it muddies the picture, where the Powabyke position is absolutely clear, only local dealers with service.
.
This ‘sub-topic’ would be invaluable to new entrants into the world of the electric bike. Perhaps the Administrator would consider opening a separate thread: it started life as "Powabyke Commuter Forks". Would a 'Sticky' be appropriate?
There is no one facet to consider before any other when making the choice of Which? bike. Too much is concentrated on the model and its performance.
Much has been posted in the last week or so on the merits or otherwise between Sole Distributorship and Dealer Network and the transparency of the service promised to be given.
The absence of competition in the Sole Dealership (virtual monopoly) scenario, once entered, denies the customer the opportunity to shop around for a better balanced deal on before-and-after-sales service. He may even be illegally ostracised by the supplier. Alternative opportunity would free the customer from the constraints imposed by one supplier/ manufacturer.
Cutting out a ‘middleman’ has possibly increased margins for those suppliers remaining in the chain (there is one less mark-up to provide) but it will do little for the end user if the benefits are not passed on in the form of price competition and an equal and transparent service.
The point made concerning ‘denial’, when faults appear in the product, are all too prevalent. How easy it is for the supplier to say when confronted by a problem “No one else has had this problem/complained”. Not being privy to the correspondence the supplier has had with his customers, who can deny what is said. Something that is not capable of proof should be carefully weighed before being offered in evidence by the supplier. I think of it as the “Peugeot 207 Syndrome”. This is similar to the question of the Giant Twist dealer denial of trouble with the charger.
How does one answer the obfuscation of suppliers in denial? One can only take the matter elsewhere for a solution.
Internet Trading – Trading at a distance – has created all sorts of problems for the consumer which, in the last analysis can only be redressed by going to law: an expensive and uncertain problem solving route. One rarely gets the opportunity to check out the supplier’s premises (set up); their business philosophy; even their business policy when a supplier is so far removed from the majority of his customer base. Is this a 'given' in an internet trading company's policy? As with so many other forms of contract one does not interpret the 'form of words' of the small print until one has a claim.
What information there is on the company, the manufacturer and the products are all, in the main and for all practical purposes, contained within the website. There is little or no printed matter, to read, to digest, to form an opinion: the evidence of the terms of the contract must be printed by the customer. That information may be incomplete: not what one might expect when one considers it. Some abbreviated or vague clauses go uncorrected despite repeated requests for clarification, ultimately damaging the relationship between customer and supplier.
If one were to apply rigidly the test of ‘caveat emptor’, one would never buy anything of significant cost/value on the internet.
I cannot quite understand the reluctance of aggrieved end users to publish the name of their tormentor on the Forum. Perhaps that is not what the Forum is for. Of course it is only reasonable to engage the supplier in private correspondence in the beginning. Indeed it may be that the first communication should be made by telephone (complaint in writing tends to raise the profile of a claim). One must eventually resort to writing (including e-mail) because that is the only way to keep a record of the negotiation. Furthermore, the writing must, at some time, be formalized if the claim is to be admitted at law - which may be an inevitable consequence of dealing with an intractable supplier.
If a supplier company trades by the internet/Forum he may be criticized on the internet/Forum, His products may be examined under the light of the internet/Forum in order to reach a consensus with other complainant owners/users who the supplier has or could deny exist.
Long life and power to the Forum.
Peter
.
