Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan, presumably, given this $1 watch street vendor's example, and your extremely positive experience of it, you now give your core, professional services away for nothing, just to make a random passer-by happy. Is that right?

 

How often do you do this? On demand?

[plasticman]

This thread has gone all over the place.

 

I maintain that the issue should have been a simple one: the lug failure was apparently impossible to foresee by the camera owner (the screws have somehow come loose internally), and a camera requires the attachment of a lens to operate. Damage to the lens caused by the breaking of the lugs should therefore be covered to exactly the same extent as damage to the camera itself.

 

I don't believe for a second that any 'limited liability' clause would help Leica in this case, to be frank - though naturally a €400 cost is not worth disputing.

 

Describing the above scenario as "unthinking brand loyalty... [and] unreasonable expectations" is simply absurd.

 

I very much doubt Leica would have treated one of their celebrity clients in this shoddy way.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bill]

Street vendor = minimal overheads - no staff, no bricks and mortar, cheap stock, etc. Cost to him of a "gesture" = less than a cup of coffee. Chances of you being so easily impressed that you plaster the story all over the internet, and buy something from him the next time you go past = high.

 

The street vendor is no fool. Neither is he a multi-million Euro camera manufacturer. Since so many of us "fail to get it" perhaps the example is fatally flawed...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Alan, presumably, given this $1 watch street vendor's example, and your extremely positive experience of it, you now give your core, professional services away for nothing, just to make a random passer-by happy. Is that right?

 

How often do you do this? On demand?

 

Do you and Bill not understand that these are examples of two extreme opposite views of service? One from this vendor and the other from Leica. In the first case there is virtual certainty of customer satisfaction. In the second case there is a chance that the M9 owner will be pretty unhappy and will start a post titled, "Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service."

 

As I mentioned in a previous post. This was just one of the problems the OP had with the camera or company. Do you think any of your comments or views has convinced him to change his opinion?

Edited May 17, 2011 by AlanG

[jaapv]

You really don't get the point do you? This has nothing to do with price and all to do with satisfaction. The vendor who gave me a new watch did not benefit in any way. .

Maybe not. It might be that this was not a good example to get your point across? On the market a fruit vendor will often hand out a handful of cherries to attract customers. Do you expect Leica to hand out free Summarits?

[andybarton]

Do you and Bill not understand that these are examples of two extreme opposite views of service? One from this vendor and the other from Leica. In the first case there is virtual certainty of customer satisfaction. In the second case there is a chance that the M9 owner will be pretty unhappy and will start a post titled, "Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service."

 

As I mentioned in a previous post. This was just one of the problems the OP had with the camera or company. Do you think any of your comments or views has convinced him to change his opinion?

 

Sorry - thought you were proposing that Leica just give their products away to make people happy. And that you were so impressed by the street vendor doing just that, that this is the way we should all be making people happy. Give stuff away.

 

I have already stated what I think Leica should have done for the person with the broken studs, but I obviously have no idea what Bill or anyone else understands.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I have already stated what I think Leica should have done for the person with the broken studs, but I obviously have no idea what Bill or anyone else understands.

 

Yes, I saw that you too felt Leica should have simply repaired the lens in this unusual case. And, as in the example of the cheap watch, what is the most this would have cost them? It seems obvious to me, but I'm not Leica.

[andybarton]

Yes, I saw that you too felt Leica should have simply repaired the lens in this unusual case. And, as in the example of the cheap watch, what is the most this would have cost them? It seems obvious to me, but I'm not Leica.

 

That's all that's necessary

[menos I M6]

I follow this thread more or less silently.

I suggest the few here, who seem, to ridicule an analogy about street into the absurd for the sake of … argueing (?), to step back for a minute, drink a tea/ coffee/ whatever drink, read the thread again and amuse about themselves.

 

This is not about persons or being right or wrong - this discussion looks very strange to me.

Plasticman makes a reasonable point.

 

I wish the OP, to have it sorted out reasonably.

[bill]

This is not to complain, nor to suggest Leica is creating inferior products. Just a log

of my experience and to welcome any suggestions.

 

Thoughts are welcome!

 

... just a quick trip back to first principles. The OP seems quite sensible about this.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[ho_co]

Christopher--It just occurred to me: Are you handling the matter through your dealer, not directly with Solms?

 

I know you spoke to Solms by phone after getting the estimate, but are the prices and description quoted relayed to you by your dealer? Have you not seen the official Leica paperwork from Solms?

[jaapv]

Yes, I saw that you too felt Leica should have simply repaired the lens in this unusual case. And, as in the example of the cheap watch, what is the most this would have cost them? It seems obvious to me, but I'm not Leica.

If that was your point I simply agree.

[AlanG]

If that was your point I simply agree.

 

That has clearly been my point all along.

 

"Does it not seem reasonable to expect that when a strap lug comes loose and a camera falls as a result that a lens would likely be attached and damaged? To only have minor cosmetic damage is very fortunate. How much could it possibly cost Leica to just repair that?"

 

Well I'm glad you agree. Once we convince Bill and a few others then Leica will act on it for sure.

 

By the way, creating a post titled, "Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service" sounds like a complaint to me regardless of the disclaimer. It is sort of like saying to someone,"I'm not saying you are fat, but if your butt gets any bigger it will need its own Zip Code."

Edited May 17, 2011 by AlanG

[erl]

I believe the OP does have some redress on Leica, based on his report. It is for him to initiate it.

 

Regarding the street vendor and the watch episode, that has in part been pooh poohed by some, I offer the following. Some years ago, my Hasselblad was sabotaged at a wedding by a disgruntled photographer who lost the job. (It's a long story but the facts are there). He took an oportune moment to shift the flash synch on the lens from 'X' to 'M' on my camera when I briefly put it down outside the church. (Current lenses don't have that). As can be imagined, the resulting wedding pictures were disastrous (no photoShop then!).

 

To conclude the point, I acquired every slide negative etc that I could, from the wedding guests and put together a wedding album, at no charge. That involved expensive internegs etc. The bride was very impressed. So much so, that she appointed herself as my private booking clerk for every would be bride in her extensive office. That both surprised and pleased me.

 

Another album of mine had coffee spilled on a print 30 years later. It was brought to me to see if anything could be done to fix it. After 30 years, as you can imagine, my skills had improved somewhat, so I took it upon myself the reprint the entire album, so that the prints would still match. Perchance, I had an old original album left in stock, so they got the new coverset as well. They too now broadcast my service far and wide. I could go on. The bottom line, I don't believe there is a cost to good service overall.

 

I think the attitude differences on this aspect is maybe the difference between being self employed or an employer, who will see the benefit and that view maybe held by employeees who don't readily see a benefit in 'un-necessary' service.

 

Apologies for the length, but it really is much longer.

Edited May 18, 2011 by erl

[ChristopherGrant]

Christopher--It just occurred to me: Are you handling the matter through your dealer, not directly with Solms?

 

I know you spoke to Solms by phone after getting the estimate, but are the prices and description quoted relayed to you by your dealer? Have you not seen the official Leica paperwork from Solms?

 

I originally started through my dealer as I've developed a relationship with them however

I did call Solms directly to get more information this past Friday. Unfortunately the

tech must've gone home early as details weren't available other than it was on it's way

back to me that same day.

 

Prices quoted were from the Danish service rep.

I live in Sweden.

 

ALAN: You do have a point.

[Paulus]

Maybe not. It might be that this was not a good example to get your point across? On the market a fruit vendor will often hand out a handful of cherries to attract customers. Do you expect Leica to hand out free Summarits?

 

 

 

I must agree with Jaap on this. It's easy to create some goodwill when you know that this costumer will tell everybody he got a watch for free, because his first was broken. Great advertisement. But the watch seller also knows that he has a margin on the next watch of 20 times its value.

 

Leica doesn't sell camera equipment for that price ( at least I hope )

 

 

And they do give things back in return!

 

I had a summicron asph 35/2 titanisiert. The titanium came of. Bought it at Foto Lambertin in Köln.

Foto Lamertin took it back an I could take what i wanted fot it, at the same price. I took the 1,4 sumlx asph 50mm. I truly became a happy costumer!

 

Maybe you have to deal with the right people at the right place? And they really want to be sure it's Leica's mistake.

[jaques]

there are a lot of strange analogies in this thread... No one would expect Leica to hand out lenses like they were cherries. This is simply absurd.

 

I think anyone who looks at this issue should think of it in these terms:

 

If YOU had a new M9 under warranty- and the strap lugs failed due to defective manufacturing- directly causing damage to YOUR lens- would you be happy with leica's refusal to service/repair/exchange the lens?

 

If so good for you- but not for me.

 

I would NOT be happy, and I believe I would have a legal basis for pursuing the matter regardless of any caveats in the Leica warranty.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Jaques,

 

You seem to hail from a world where there is one universal legal system.

 

Where are you living?

[lct]

Depends on the applicable law which is generally that of the country of purchase. The limitation of liability clause of Leica's contractual warranty does not alter either the buyer's statutory rights towards his seller, or his legal rights as a consumer under the national law applicable. This is clearly reminded in Leica warranty cards BTW.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bill]

Once we convince Bill and a few others then Leica will act on it for sure.

 

Flattery will get you anywhere

 

I come at this as follows:

 

"Customer Service" comes at a cost. That cost is built into the operating costs of the organisation. Every single "gesture" has a price that impacts margin and therefore profitability. No customer service decision should ever be taken capriciously or as a result of being hectored or badgered to "do the right thing".

 

When scoping a piece of work I establish my margin. As time goes onI also make an accrual to pay for eventualities - for example, one of my key technical resources was on holiday last week, but has been delayed getting back to work on customer site this week by travel difficulties. He can make up the time lost, but I will likely bear some of his cost in doing so as a gesture of goodwill. My point is that I have already taken that into consideration in my figures.

 

A sole trader on the other hand has, for want of a better word, "commercial agility" that a corporation or company simply does not. He can choose to give his product away, there and then, or work evenings and weekends to over-deliver, in the hope of increasing his stock of that ultimate intangible, "goodwill". You cannot judge that sort of seat-of-the-pants, knee-jerk, hope-is-not-a-strategy behaviour in the same light as the customer service behaviour of a company such as Apple, Samsung, Tata, Siemens, Canon or Leica.

 

Are those who think Leica should front up every time somebody comes along and says "I did nothing out of the ordinary, but my Leica failed and in so doing broke this out of production, very rare lens that I chose to put on the body today please fix them both for me for free" willing to put up with the price hike that would be necessitated to pay for that policy?

 

Or are you content to let Leica CS continue to ignore the moral and ethical blow-hards, judge each case as it is presented to them on its merits and make pragmatic, sensible and cost-effective gestures of goodwill when and if they consider it to make sound business sense to do so?

 

I am.

 

I bought an MP from Leica last year. I mount lenses to it. I also have a Lens Carrier M, which means for the uninitiated that I can have two lenses attached to the body at the same time. A strap lug failure for me could result in both being damaged. It is my choice what lenses I mount. It is my choice to use the lens carrier and hence "increase my risk". I take responsibility for my choices and my actions. More fool me, if I get it wrong. My fall-back is that my equipment is insured. That costs me money. An accrual, if you like, against the unexpected, as above. Leica rightly limits their liability and excludes consequential loss; they would be foolhardy (and unique) not to do so in today's litigious, anyone's-fault-but-mine blame culture.

 

Again, let me be clear. The OP has, from his posts, acted reasonably throughout and has been reasonable in his expectations. My issue is with those who extrapolate Leica's "liability" from there and then berate them based upon their understanding of a fragment of the bigger picture.

 

Again, Leica isn't a charity. They offer pragmatic, sensible levels of customer service based upon what they can sensibly afford. You think that they don't know that a disaffected customer may find their way to this very forum and stir up a storm? Of course they do. But that risk should form part of their assessment of the cost of refusing a claim.

 

Bottom line is that we could debate this until the cows come home. Some will think that if you break a nail changing a lens Leica should pay for a manicure. Some will wrap their kit in cotton wool and humidity-controlled gadget bags and only bring it out when it is safe to do so. Some will use it like the tool it is, performing their own risk assessment as they do so and will take a pragmatic view if and when shit happens.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Regards,

 

Bill