Unused Argos voucher

MorningStar

rubadub wrote:

So do you think vouchers without expiry dates are worse for customer relations? Or would you admit they are better for customer relations.

No I in fact know this as it has no effect on voucher sales. There are codes to track replacing vouchers in stores due to expiration and it is rare. So not only do I not think it effects customer relations but it actually has no impact what so ever.

rubadub wrote:

The only person mentioning the law is yourself! nobody has claimed it is illegal. Stores do not have to accept back perfectly good products either, HMV do though, within 21 days you can get your money back, not and exchange CASH. I know plenty of people who still buy cds there rather than online if they are unsure of an album, safe in the knowledge they can return it even if it is a few euro more. Plenty of big shops accept back clothes too. You keep saying how much you know about the retail business surely you must agree that stores doing these services have good customer service. That is what people are talking about here, not the law.

I suggest you go into HMV and try to do that with a PS2 game and find out there policy for real . I don't agree that it improves customer service as you pay for the good by the premium margin they have on their goods. No retailer does anything for good customer service as such it is just a way to make more money.

rubadub wrote:

That is laughable, how utterly patronising and condescending can you get! He does know the "facts of the matter", he knows it is perfectly legal and may make some accounting sense. All we are saying is that we think it is better for customers to get a voucher with no expiry date, most shops I see do it, argos do not and obviously could if they wanted to.

I am sure I could do a better job of being condescending but would you understand any more? I will however admitt I did get something wrong, Argos are using the card system but they are using it with expiration dates. Actually you didn't say it was good for customer service it was about what was morally right and fair. The legal system assed the subject and came to what they thought was fiar, it isn't just a simple legal assement but firness in law.

rubadub wrote:

I don't know why there were so many threads about the smoking ban, didnt those people opposed to it realise their opinions meant absolutely nothing, the law decided what was fair. And they WERE questioning the law...

Actually that was legaslation for the safety of society and considerably differernt to what is fair. There was the element of fairness with regard to safety of the working environmnet which was ultimately what the law was brought into fix.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

No I in fact know this as it has no effect on voucher sales. There are codes to track replacing vouchers in stores due to expiration and it is rare. So not only do I not think it effects customer relations but it actually has no impact what so ever.

What! Not even me? Do my sales not count at all?!!

MorningStar wrote:

I suggest you go into HMV and try to do that with a PS2 game and find out there policy for real . I don't agree that it improves customer service as you pay for the good by the premium margin they have on their goods.

Lots of stores accept clothes back for no reason once they are not worn. Dunnes & River Islands are a couple that spring to mind. Don't you think somebody is more likely to shop in one of those stores that has a 30 day no quibble returns policy?

MorningStar wrote:

No retailer does anything for good customer service as such it is just a way to make more money.

Yeah, I agree, but good customer service = more sales = more money

MorningStar wrote:

I will however admitt I did get something wrong...

Well I'm amazed, wonders never cease!!

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

What! Not even me? Do my sales not count at all?!!

Maybe if you write them a letter you could get filed under loon. The figures show no difference when it is brought in and no problems with customer service.

HelterSkelter wrote:

Lots of stores accept clothes back for no reason once they are not worn. Dunnes & River Islands are a couple that spring to mind. Don't you think somebody is more likely to shop in one of those stores that has a 30 day no quibble returns policy?

I can tell you in the US if you didn't have the policy it would be a problem. In Europe it is not and as I said who do you think pays for returned goods? If you take the tags off the clothes in most shops they will not let you return it no matter what country. Clothes are slightly different anyway with profit margins in the 3 figures typically 600%.

HelterSkelter wrote:

Yeah, I agree, but good customer service = more sales = more money

That is a nice belief but not true. Bad customer service causes a problem and a clearly stated policy is not bad customer service. The limited number of complaints and the type of people who would complain about such an issue would be basically deemed too much trouble for the net benifit. THey crunch numbers and work it out.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

That is a nice belief but not true. Bad customer service causes a problem and a clearly stated policy is not bad customer service.

I have to disagree. I used to work for a retailler. There were 2 other retaillers on the same road within 500m selling the same product for the same price. He reckoned he got much more business because he concentrated on giving the customers good service.

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

I have to disagree. I used to work for a retailler. There were 2 other retaillers on the same road within 500m selling the same product for the same price. He reckoned he got much more business because he concentrated on giving the customers good service.

Well working with over 30 major retail chain that operate world wide I might just have a tad more experience on this:p
"Reckoning" as a way to calculate profit and costs tend to be the biggest problems companies experience. Performance and figures tell you what is working to make profit. As I said it is not good customer service that gets you business it is bad customer service that costs you. Just don't be bad is actually how retailers operate now.
The companies will not change the policy it is both logical and fair, it is also legal so there is no ground to complain excpet to be unreasonable. The customer is not always right.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar, to revert to one of your previous points, can you explain what is the difficulty with accepting old vouchers from an accounting point of view?

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

MorningStar, to revert to one of your previous points, can you explain what is the difficulty with accepting old vouchers from an accounting point of view?

No , I suggest you read the whole thread as it well explained.

HelterSkelter

I did read the thread. The two reasons I found are

It is an accontancy thing. It is unreasonable to keep an debit outstanding. THe same way a cheque expires. How would you feel if you gave a company a cheque and at any point they might cash it. THe same principle really.

and

there are valid accounting / book keeping reasons for these dates

I am just interested in the details behind why it is a problem. I mean is it just a pain in the arse for some accountant to deal with? Are the company afraid of a large number of vouchers building up thus they owe a lot of money to customers? Do the same problems arise when issuing a credit note to customers?

MorningStar

Businesses write off bad debits to balance such things you also write off bad credit. More to the point you treat the consumer like a normal bussiness. As I pointed out you wouldn't expect them to cash a cheque at any point this is the exact same as them.
That is it no discussion, no debate it is what is done. At any point the voucher can be made null and void as per the terms and conditions. Even the ones without expire dates expire. These are business not the central bank.

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

No I in fact know this as it has no effect on voucher sales. There are codes to track replacing vouchers in stores due to expiration and it is rare. So not only do I not think it effects customer relations but it actually has no impact what so ever.

Are you for real? every comment you make is so absolutely definite. How in the name of jaysus do you think it has no effect on voucher sales when 2 of us have already said we would not buy them because of it. I know plenty who would not either. People may use them before the expiration date but could buy something they dont really want. I know plenty that go to HMV and blow them on stuff they don't really want, even though there is no expiration date, some would keep them for another day, but if they DID have an expiration date people would use them on a semi wanted cd. Then would think feck them I didnt like that expiration date forcing me to buy that so I will not buy a voucher for my mate. How on earth can your "figures" reflect peoples decisions to buy them in the first place.

MorningStar wrote:

suggest you go into HMV and try to do that with a PS2 game and find out there policy for real . I don't agree that it improves customer service as you pay for the good by the premium margin they have on their goods.

I already told you why it is good for the CUSTOMER, they have a no-quibble returns policy on cds and dvds anyways. I am not sure about games, I never bought one, maybe it is mentioned in the terms on the wall in HMV since so many people played it and returned it afterwards, treating it like a rental shop. Some people will pay the extra €2 as a form of insurance if you like. I bought plenty of cds in my time that I would not have "risked" buying if I was not sure I could have got a refund, I end up keeping about 80% of them.
You seem to know about argos, why do you think all their advertisements scream about the 16 day return policy, do you not think that pulls in more customers. For somebody who "knows everything about retail" you don't seem to be able to grasp the fundamental things customers want.

MorningStar wrote:

No retailer does anything for good customer service as such it is just a way to make more money.

Yes the retailer is making more money by selling good to people who otherwise may have bought it elsewhere where they knew they could return it if it was unwanted. The shop gets goodwill by word of mouth and return service. How can you claim to know so much about retail, and yet be completely BLIND to what a customer could possibly want. Your magical figures do not show a lot of what makes people decide to buy in one place or another.



Can you answer me this.
If somebody gave you a present of a voucher for a clothes shop that you do not usually frequent and said to you "I have 2 of these for €100 would you like the one with an expiry date of 1 year or the one with no expiry date?"
Which would you pick and why? ( and please not some weasily bullcrap like, "I would tell my friend to keep it himself")

Culchie

It's a good lively debate lads, but just keep it civil

MorningStar

rubadub wrote:

Are you for real? every comment you make is so absolutely definite. How in the name of jaysus do you think it has no effect on voucher sales when 2 of us have already said we would not buy them because of it. I know plenty who would not either.

Simple I implemented this in many stores due to the problems they had with fraud. Sales of vouchers have not been effected that is how I can diffitively answer the question. You can choose not to believe me and beleive the consumer power you weild really makes a difference.
If you paid a ttention you would have nooticed I said reissued vouchers are accounted for and are minimal.

rubadub wrote:

I already told you why it is good for the CUSTOMER, they have a no-quibble returns policy on cds and dvds anyways. I am not sure about games, I never bought one, maybe it is mentioned in the terms on the wall in HMV since so many people played it and returned it afterwards, treating it like a rental shop. Some people will pay the extra €2 as a form of insurance if you like. I bought plenty of cds in my time that I would not have "risked" buying if I was not sure I could have got a refund, I end up keeping about 80% of them.
You seem to know about argos, why do you think all their advertisements scream about the 16 day return policy, do you not think that pulls in more customers. For somebody who "knows everything about retail" you don't seem to be able to grasp the fundamental things customers want.

What the customer wants really doesn't matter as much as consumers believe. Look at this way Ford have been proven to have decided not to recall a car that had a fatal flaw becuase less would be paid oput in claims. Actual people died as a result. Do you think loosing a few customers is a big deal if it saves them a fortune?
As I explained theextra €2 extra doesn't really benifit the consumer as you think it is advertisemnet fluff to increase profits. The consumer looses out in the same way insurance is sold on new appliances. If you don't think so good for you but it isn't smart shopping.

rubadub wrote:

Yes the retailer is making more money by selling good to people who otherwise may have bought it elsewhere where they knew they could return it if it was unwanted. The shop gets goodwill by word of mouth and return service. How can you claim to know so much about retail, and yet be completely BLIND to what a customer could possibly want. Your magical figures do not show a lot of what makes people decide to buy in one place or another.

Far far overratted is the good word when dealing with large chains. It only really matters with small shops. There are lots of studies on this. If you worked on retail and read as many reports and studies as I have you might know the truth. As is you have belief that certain things make a difference but as I read the industry information I know what they base their stuff on. THey pay lip sevice to the common beliefs such as the customer is always right and you are falling for it. I know what you don't know about retail and what you believe.

By the way the retail movement is now starting to take name and addresses of people who return goods and will flag customers for repeated returns will be barred from stores. A lot of fraud is the reason along with CD copying etc...

rubadub wrote:

Can you answer me this.
If somebody gave you a present of a voucher for a clothes shop that you do not usually frequent and said to you "I have 2 of these for €100 would you like the one with an expiry date of 1 year or the one with no expiry date?"
Which would you pick and why? ( and please not some weasily bullcrap like, "I would tell my friend to keep it himself")

I have yet to weasle out of anything. It doesn't bother me becasue I know both have expiration dates whichg you don't believe or understand. Either way I wouldn't care. If I was stupid and really believed it made a difference it wouldn't bother me either. Expiration dates are normally 2 years by the way.

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

It doesn't bother me becasue I know both have expiration dates whichg you don't believe or understand. Either way I wouldn't care. If I was stupid and really believed it made a difference it wouldn't bother me either. Expiration dates are normally 2 years by the way.

MorningStar wrote:

I have yet to weasle out of anything

You just did!
again, which would you pick? and why?

MorningStar

rubadub wrote:

You just did!
again, which would you pick? and why?

Listen I would base it on the stores if not the stores or value are any different I would pock the one closest to me.
I WOULD NOT CARE. That is my opinion. If you can't understand that it makes no difference then that is your problem. You obviously are missing something where by you can't see your view doesn't effect how others think.

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

You obviously are missing something where by you can't see your view doesn't effect how others think.

No just wanted to verify your view. I think it is very odd that you would not care about being forced into buying within a specific time limit or risk loosing out completely.

If I was offered a €1000 voucher for a travel agents with a choice of one with a 1 year expiry date or one with no expiry date, I would go for the one with no expiry date. I honestly think most people would too, it is simple common sense. Why would people not care about restrictions.

MorningStar

rubadub wrote:

No just wanted to verify your view. I think it is very odd that you would not care about being forced into buying within a specific time limit or risk loosing out completely.

If I was offered a €1000 voucher for a travel agents with a choice of one with a 1 year expiry date or one with no expiry date, I would go for the one with no expiry date. I honestly think most people would too, it is simple common sense. Why would people not care about restrictions.

Becasue as I keep telling you the ones without expiry dates also expire! As I also said it is normally 2 years and that companies have handling practices in most cases for expiration. Nobody real loses you are just ranting on about something that is not really a problem except in small minded people who can't gasp simple business practices. You have the power to not buy such vouchers, why you would restrict anybody to one store in the first place?
When you ever get into your fantasy world where somebody is offering you two vouchers with and without expire dates printed you can make the right decision for you.
Some people aren't idiots and some people are you can decide what you think of somebody who doesn't care about expiration dates as you like. It won't change the business practice or law.

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

Becasue as I keep telling you the ones without expiry dates also expire!

I used vouchers in punts last year in HMV. They may well be allowed to "expire" the vouchers by law. I would not be impressed with a company that did that.

MorningStar wrote:

you are just ranting on about something that is not really a problem except in small minded people who can't gasp simple business practices.

You are the one ranting about legality and alleged superior knowledge. We all know the reasons businesswise. Some companies obviously think it is worth their while to put no expiry dates on vouchers. Argos certainly must think their 16 day return policy is worthwhile financially, and HMV with their 21 days.

MorningStar wrote:

When you ever get into your fantasy world where somebody is offering you two vouchers with and without expire dates printed you can make the right decision for you.

Yes it is fanatasy, it is called a hypothetical question :rolleyes:

If a person won some competition and was offered the choice of a holiday voucher for €1000 that expired in 30 days or one that expired in 10 years I would think most would pick the 10 years one. I think you are in the minority if you didnt care which you got.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

Becasue as I keep telling you the ones without expiry dates also expire! As I also said it is normally 2 years and that companies have handling practices in most cases for expiration.

If there is no expiry date printed on the terms & conditions then it can not expire. That would NEVER stand up in a court of law.

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

If there is no expiry date printed on the terms & conditions then it can not expire. That would NEVER stand up in a court of law.

WRONG! At any point the business can null and void the voucher at any time! This is in the terms and conditions and has legal backing. It doesn't really happen that way normally current vouchers are used as in most cases with expiration.

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

No retailer does anything for good customer service as such it is just a way to make more money.

I dont see why they all do not just announce that you are getting nothing for your voucher so, that would be the best business practise according to your logic. I mean people bad mouthing or praising businesses does nothing to sales according to your magical figures.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

WRONG! At any point the business can null and void the voucher at any time! This is in the terms and conditions and has legal backing. It doesn't really happen that way normally current vouchers are used as in most cases with expiration.

So if I have a voucher and I don't use it for say one and a half years, I go into the shop and they refuse to recognise it, I have the recepit for the voucher and take them to the small claims court, are you saying I would lose the case? On what basis do you think the court would rule against me?

MorningStar

rubadub wrote:

I dont see why they all do not just announce that you are getting nothing for your voucher so, that would be the best business practise according to your logic. I mean people bad mouthing or praising businesses does nothing to sales according to your magical figures.

Nothing magical about apathy. We don't do it much here but rebate coupons rely on the same thing. So it is close to taking money off people that can have.
AS just taking money would generate money it wouldn't work asa bussiness model. I gues you think be sarcastic proves your point but to me it just shows you have no valid arguement.
It doesn't matter what you think as you will do nothing about it and it won't change. Maybe you won't buy a voucher in one store over another but will that even be noticable. Conveniece makes more sales than customer service. Look at all the people going to stores they don't like or happy with.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054873498

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

AS just taking money would generate money it wouldn't work asa bussiness model.

Not sure what you mean by this. If HMV were to refuse all vouchers that are out there they would make money yes? and since expiry dates do not matter to customers and goodwill and bad press have no effect on sales it makes good business sense to do this. They would loose no future business or customers by refusing to accept vouchers so why do they not do this.

MorningStar wrote:

I gues you think be sarcastic proves your point but to me it just shows you have no valid arguement.

I was not being sarcastic, on reading your posts that is the logical thing to do. The fact that you thought I was being sarcastic says a lot about your own previous statements.

MorningStar wrote:

Conveniece makes more sales than customer service. Look at all the people going to stores they don't like or happy with.

I would regard convenience as part of customer service.

MorningStar

rubadub wrote:

Not sure what you mean by this. If HMV were to refuse all vouchers that are out there they would make money yes? and since expiry dates do not matter to customers and goodwill and bad press have no effect on sales it makes good business sense to do this. They would loose no future business or customers by refusing to accept vouchers so why do they not do this.

That would have an obvious determental effect on the trade and publicity would not be good. That is is obvious to everybody except morons. I never said customer service wasn't important just the levels based on people bothered by expiry dates makes no difference. Joe Duffy did a big series of shows on expirey dates on Vouchers4you. AS I know they people in the company I was surprised that all of that publicity actually increased sales.

rubadub wrote:

I was not being sarcastic, on reading your posts that is the logical thing to do. The fact that you thought I was being sarcastic says a lot about your own previous statements.

I find people who make up hypothetical situation that don't really have any bearing on reality and then make up another ludicrious situation are being sarcastic. As you claim not to be I will go with the other opinion I have you. My view of what you say doesn't really effect what I say and reality.

rubadub wrote:

I would regard convenience as part of customer service.

Convenience of location has nothing really to do with customer service. Agin I point out your views on how retail works is becasue that is what they want you to believe . Somebody has weighed up customer objection to money made and fraud risks, they decided to go with expiration dates. Increase the number of people who agree with you and march on the stores. Now as most people see it as fair I guess you will not get much of a crowd.
I no interest in dealing with you anymore as to you your outrage about what you don't like overrides any sense and reality. You are simply in the minority and the law does not agree with. A pathetic attempt at debate can only be seen as trolling by you now.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

Now as most people see it as fair I guess you will not get much of a crowd.

I think the real reason you would not get much of a crowd is because people in this country could not be arsed protesting about any issue really no matter how strongly they feel about it. Take pubs for example, most people think the price of a pint is too expensive but they are never going to do anything about it.

MorningStar wrote:

You are simply in the minority and the law does not agree with.

There you go about the law again, what has that got to do with anything? I don't think he is in the minority, I just think most people can't be arsed. If you stuck a poll up here with the title "Do you think a one year expiry date on a gift voucher is fair" I think it would be a close contest.

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think the real reason you would not get much of a crowd is because people in this country could not be arsed protesting about any issue really no matter how strongly they feel about it. Take pubs for example, most people think the price of a pint is too expensive but they are never going to do anything about it.

Well you aren't even getting people to agree with the view on national radio I think that will be a bigger issue

HelterSkelter wrote:

There you go about the law again, what has that got to do with anything? I don't think he is in the minority, I just think most people can't be arsed. If you stuck a poll up here with the title "Do you think a one year expiry date on a gift voucher is fair" I think it would be a close contest.

First off I said minority of the view FIRST and THEN the llaw. Asi i have already explained the law is measure of what is seen fair. It is very very very important in gauging what is seen to be fair in a culture. Before you ream of loads of injustices it is designed to asses and be fair. Expiry dates are by no a questionable legal issue or issue of fairness.

That's it no question or debate from me you can bleat on about what ever you like but again you are seen as the minority being unreasonable and the law says you are wrong. The law counts and the customer service problem you think exists doesn't and while a company in this country went on national radio about this sales increased.

Good bye and good luck being unreasonable with reasonable policies. As general policies go you would be asked to leave the store after not accepting the companies decision or policy at this point.

I would also like to point out Helter that I answer questions put to me and explain the logic. you however avoid questions and can't answer in logic.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

That's it no question or debate from me you can bleat on about what ever you like but again you are seen as the minority being unreasonable and the law says you are wrong. The law counts and the customer service problem you think exists doesn't and while a company in this country went on national radio about this sales increased.

Ok ok, sorry MorningStar, I must have been wrong all along. Sorry for even having an opinion (different to your definitive one)

Seeing as you've decided to "point out" things about me I would like to point out that I think you are a troll. I have been looking at some of your many posts on boards and you spend most of your time arguing with people, starting fights and never backing down. You go about picking holes in whatever people say, dragging it on from thread to thread and fishing for reasons to attack people . I think you do it just to wind people up. I am going to add you to my ignore list because I don't really want to read your shít stirring anymore.

Have a nice day.

(BTW, I will respond to your post on insurance when I have time)

rubadub

MorningStar wrote:

That would have an obvious determental effect on the trade and publicity would not be good. That is is obvious to everybody except morons.

Yes, but in your mind it is still inconceivable that there could even be the slightest detrimental effect on trade if they refused vouchers after a year, after a customer never read the fine print on the voucher.

MorningStar wrote:

don't really have any bearing on reality and then make up another ludicrious situation are being sarcastic..

eh in reality some vouchers do have expiry dates and some do not (yeah yeah trot out the same crap about they all can expire). I only said for the same shop to stop you saying you would pick the voucher for your preferred shop if offered the 2. I predicted that you would weasel out of answering the question and tried to make it hard for you to do so. But yet again you trotted out the same crap and never answered the very simple question.

If you won some competition and were offered the choice of a holiday voucher for €1000 that expired in 30 days or one that expired in 10 years which would you take and why?

MorningStar wrote:

Somebody has weighed up customer objection to money made and fraud risks, they decided to go with expiration dates.

YES! and vice versa

MorningStar wrote:

I no interest in dealing with you anymore as to you your outrage about what you don't like overrides any sense and reality. You are simply in the minority and the law does not agree with. A pathetic attempt at debate can only be seen as trolling by you now.

Yeah I am really outraged :rolleyes: back with the law thing again trot trot trot, you're the one trolling with your laughable put downs and condescending remarks. I had to check some of your posts to see it was you writing them, some could easily have been taken up as another poster making sarcastic remarks about your own self righteousness.

RainyDay

I guess I'm risking recommencing the flame war by dragging this one up again! Just a note of caution for anyone who has a gift card (electronic gift token) from the Sony Centres in Dublin. Apparently, these gift cards expire after 12 months, even though there is no mention of this on the cards or the wallets. They kept me waiting in Dundrum for 20 minutes while they tried to process their card through their redemption system. When they came back telling me that it was expired, I kicked up a fair old fuss, and they gave me credit for the token.

if you have Sony Centre gift cards, use them within 12 months or expect to have to kick up a fuss.