Ontracks - starting to get fairly unimpressed

Indeed. Speaking from the perspective of someone who has managed an Internet retailer in a previous job, I'd say that it would be totally unacceptable to leave a customer in the dark for that long with no explanation. I don't think it's totally unacceptable for such a situation (an excessive delay in fulfilling an order) to occur, since that can happen for reasons beyond the control of the retailer, but if and when it does happen then the onus is on the vendor to keep the customer informed of the delay and, to the best of their ability, explain what's causing it and, if possible, give some indication of when they expect to be able to complete it. Even if the delay is, ultimately, being caused by the vendor's own supplier it's the vendor's responsibility to communicate any reasns for the delay to their customers. Even a a simple email along the lines of "We're sorry that we still haven't got the stock, we're continuing to press the manufacturer for an update on this" is better than silence.

Mark

-- Blog:

snipped-for-privacy@f37g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

Incorrect.

Irrelevant.

The OP is/was unimpressed with Ontracks. The subject line was spot on.

The OP was asking if anyone else had experienced problems sourcing products FROM A PARTICULAR RETAILER, who claimed to be able to order to fulfil requirements for said items. If the retailer knew the manufacturer was out of stock, and orders could not possibly be fulfilled, why did they make such claims?

You conveniently miss the point that the retailer is not without blame, regardless of whether the OP may be guilty of contributory negligence in not pressig the retailer for clarification.

Stop talking about yourself.

MBQ

: >wrote: : >

: >I don't know how much simpler I have to make it for Jerry. : >

: >If I order a product from a retailer based on the offering on their : >website but who is out of stock - and who remains out of stock for : >three months - then to expect some explanation from the retailer is : >not unreasonable. : : Indeed. Speaking from the perspective of someone who has managed an : Internet retailer in a previous job, I'd say that it would be totally : unacceptable to leave a customer in the dark for that long with no : explanation.

But they have not, the OP has acknowledged that the invoice indicated that the items were out of stock and that they would follow, how many times has the retailer got top repeat the same message - and as the manufactures web site is showing nil stock anyone with a brain can tell what the situation is.

I don't think it's totally unacceptable for such a : situation (an excessive delay in fulfilling an order) to occur, since : that can happen for reasons beyond the control of the retailer, but if : and when it does happen then the onus is on the vendor to keep the : customer informed of the delay and, to the best of their ability, : explain what's causing it and, if possible, give some indication of : when they expect to be able to complete it. Even if the delay is, : ultimately, being caused by the vendor's own supplier it's the : vendor's responsibility to communicate any reasns for the delay to : their customers. Even a a simple email along the lines of "We're sorry : that we still haven't got the stock, we're continuing to press the : manufacturer for an update on this" is better than silence. :

As I said, they have stated the reason, or do you expect then to send a daily email to the effect of "STILL NO STOCK" (the retailer could well have no other information themselves), if a retailer was to do that to me it would prompt me to cancel the order and never deal with the imbeciles again, but those with the attention span of a newt might welcome such frequent reminders...

Refer us to the post where he acknowledged that, if it exists. or os this just another of your lies to support your twisted view of things?

One feature of Google groups is that it is very easy to go back through the thread.

The nearest you'll find is "all currently listed as "Not in stock

- we will order to fulfill your requirements." Note LISTED, ON A WEB SITE, not on an invoice or an order acknowledgement.

Next can you please explain which bit of "For over three months Ontracks failed to offer any explanation for the delay in completing my order" you are (deliberately?) failing to comprehend?

If the retailer knows the manufacturer has no stock, why do they insist that they can stil order from the manufacturer to fulfil customer orders?

MBQ

Again, speaking as someone who has worked as an Internet retailer, I'd say that at least monthly, and possibly weekly, would be appropriate.

But the manufacturer's website may simply be out of date, or even deliberately misleading. It wouldn't be the first time!

Not daily, no, but a regular update would be appropriate. One thing the retailer can do, that the customer can't, is speak to the customer service or sales team at the manufacturer and get some idea of possible timescales and maybe even an explanation of why it's taking so long. If they can get some useful information out of the manufacturer that way, then it's good customer service to pass that on to their own customers.

Mark

-- Blog:

Because the manufacturer may have told them that stock should be available shortly. If the manufacturer then fails to deliver on that promise, the retailer should let their own customers know the situation so that they aren't left hanging.

Websites are not always kept up to date, and even if they are they often only show the current status rather than the expected status in a few days' time. I don't know what Bachmann's usual lead time for deliveries to retailers is, but if it's, say, a week, and their sales staff had told Ontracks that stock would be available in a few days, then it wold make sense for Ontracks to place the orders straight away, even before stock is available, so that they're first in the queue when it does come in.

Mark

-- Blog:

: >

: >But they have not, the OP has acknowledged that the invoice : >indicated that the items were out of stock and that they would : >follow, how many times has the retailer got top repeat the same : >message : : Again, speaking as someone who has worked as an Internet retailer, I'd : say that at least monthly, and possibly weekly, would be appropriate.

And how do we know that this hasn't been happening, the message doesn't change but the customer still gets upset (and rather than find a clue and check with the manufacture/importer he starts ranting on about crap retailers on Usenet)...

: : >- and as the manufactures web site is showing nil stock : >anyone with a brain can tell what the situation is. : : But the manufacturer's website may simply be out of date, or even

Hmm, even with a very visible 'Last up dated' stamp?...

: deliberately misleading. It wouldn't be the first time!

Err, why would they mislead people that something is *out of stock*, surely that is like cutting your own nose of to spite some else's face?... Duh!

And what happens when the manufacture leaves the retailer hanging, the problem is not the retailer but the importer/manufacture - something that the OP and the cling-on trolls can't seem to work out, the subject line should have read 'Bachmann - very unimpressed' if the OP wanted to have a pop at someone, not a retailer who (as you say) is at the mercy of the manufacture/supplier.

Then the retailer informs the customer that they have tried, but failed to get any information from the manufacturer.

It may well be that Bachmann, ultimately, is responsible for the problem. But Ontracks could still have handled it a lot better. Two wrongs, as the saying goes, don't make a right.

Mark

-- Blog:

Maybe because he hasn't been given any update from Ontracks. You seem so keen to attack the OP that you're rather missing the point of what he's complaining about. His contract is with Ontracks, not with Bachmann.

Maybe because they don't want to admit that, say, the reason they've been unable to supply is because a fault has been found in the model and they've had to send them all back to the plant for correction. Or maybe their marketing department is one of those which thinks that information is something to be guarded rather than disseminated. I've seen plenty of businesses that work like that, not willing ever to admit in public that they've made a mistake or being prepared to relinquish control over what leaks out of the PR department.

Mark

-- Blog:

: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in message : >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:50:43 -0000, Jerry put finger to : >keyboard and : >: typed: : >: : >

: >: >

: >: >But they have not, the OP has acknowledged that the invoice : >: >indicated that the items were out of stock and that they would : >: >follow, how many times has the retailer got top repeat the : >same : >: >message : >: : >: Again, speaking as someone who has worked as an Internet : >retailer, I'd : >: say that at least monthly, and possibly weekly, would be : >appropriate. : >

: >And how do we know that this hasn't been happening, the message : >doesn't change but the customer still gets upset (and rather than : >find a clue and check with the manufacture/importer he starts : >ranting on about crap retailers on Usenet)... : : Maybe because he hasn't been given any update from Ontracks. You seem : so keen to attack the OP that you're rather missing the point of what : he's complaining about.

But when he doesn't believe what the retailer is saying isn't it wise to check with the manufacture (or another retailer) first before sounding off against a retailer that might well be blameless - it's called using ones own imitative, helping ones self - of course so many people in this f*cked up country just expect to be spoon feed all the time...

: His contract is with Ontracks, not with Bachmann.

If he hasn't been charged there is no contract, and on that point, he still hasn't answered the simple question of why he didn't.doesn't just cancel the order and buy elsewhere if her believes that these products are available...

: : >: >- and as the manufactures web site is showing nil stock : >: >anyone with a brain can tell what the situation is. : >: : >: But the manufacturer's website may simply be out of date, or : >even : >

: >Hmm, even with a very visible 'Last up dated' stamp?... : >

: >: deliberately misleading. It wouldn't be the first time! : >

: >Err, why would they mislead people that something is *out of : >stock*, surely that is like cutting your own nose of to spite : >some else's face?... Duh! : : Maybe because they don't want to admit that, say, the reason they've : been unable to supply is because a fault has been found in the model : and they've had to send them all back to the plant for correction. Or : maybe their marketing department is one of those which thinks that : information is something to be guarded rather than disseminated. I've : seen plenty of businesses that work like that, not willing ever to : admit in public that they've made a mistake or being prepared to : relinquish control over what leaks out of the PR department. :

What a load of utter bollox!

You really don't think that sort of thing ever happens? Gosh, you are naive, aren't you.

Mark

-- Blog:

oh good, what do you think about craftsmans kits ?

Cheers, Simon

Despite anything that Jerry says I am still very unimpressed with Ontracks who clearly regard communicating with customers as a low priority.

If readers want to praise Ontracks - for whatever reason - please start your own thread.

Do not high-jack this thread (or allow Jerry to shout down anybody he doesn't agree with) by reversing the emphasis of the subject.

Thank you.

Are you Sokwoo Lee in disguise or something? ;-)

Agree with you there jerry, thread highjack and the evolution of a chain is one thing that keeps me to an unmoderated group.

Cheers, Simon

Ontracks - still very unimpressed despite Jerry's attempts to shout down anybody who disagrees with him!