Resolved: Reverb woes

[Sands]

You may want to re-read it again.

No chance pal.

 

[Polkatronixx]

No chance pal.

 

[Sands]

I think some of the heavy contributors should provide a documentary thread of their instrument packing process(es). I’ve bought and sold more than I will admit, and I can assure you that I’ve never received anything large packed any way resembling the way they suggest OP should have packed his instrument.

 

[JohnnyBottom]

I think some of the heavy contributors should provide a documentary thread of their instrument packing process(es). I’ve bought and sold more than I will admit, and I can assure you that I’ve never received anything large packed any way resembling the way they suggest OP should have packed his instrument.

and a forklift will still kill the baby

 

[PhatBottomBass1]

I have never personally experienced a shipping disaster with a guitar with or without a case. Various approaches to packing. In the end, it comes down to the shipping company exercising reasonable care in handling packages. Must you be prepared for your package to be handled like Ace Ventura at the start of "Pet Detective?" Or beable to sustain impact from being dropped off a 6 story building or is it 10 stories that is required??

I have had a 2 space Aguilar tube amp shipped in a 4 space rack with one layer or cardboard covering the rack from that large big-box retail music chain that exploded out the front of the face of the amp. The shippers fault? No; that was just stupid packaging! The retailer paid to have the amp rebuilt by someone who knows what they are doing.

I've had a speaker cabinet packaged by the shipper. Arrived with Tolex damage on three corners and a caster mounting plate punching a small hole in the side. The shipper paid that claim. While getting it worked out the shipper store re-boxed and moved the package again WITHOUT my permission. When it returned several days later it had Tolex damage on 4 corners this one being on the other side. Guess what shipping fans...thats a NEW damage claim. They ended up paying that claim as well.

Know your rights!

 

[Fuzzbass]

I think some of the heavy contributors should provide a documentary thread of their instrument packing process(es). I’ve bought and sold more than I will admit, and I can assure you that I’ve never received anything large packed any way resembling the way they suggest OP should have packed his instrument.

Yeah, I'd be fascinated by how to do a forklift-proof packing job.

 

[FunkHead]

No chance pal.

Well I can assure you you didn't understand it the 1st time.

I think some of the heavy contributors should provide a documentary thread of their instrument packing process(es). I’ve bought and sold more than I will admit, and I can assure you that I’ve never received anything large packed any way resembling the way they suggest OP should have packed his instrument.

It's not that I always meet the minimum packaging requirements, however, I am willing to admit that "I am the one taking the gamble."

I have sold ~1004 basses of which a very small few were person to person. Approximately 990 were shipped. Of those ~990, exactly 3 were badly damaged......

.......One was a very nice BC Rich Warlock which FEDEX broke the head stock clean off. FEDEX showed me in writing how my packaging did not meet their requirements. Even though they clearly laid it across 2 sawhorses and hit it with a 16 pound sledgehammer. My claim was denied 3 times as I climbed the layer of FEDEX managers. Each one suggestively accused me of the bass being broken before I even shipped it. Finally the 4th person agreed to approve my claim as a One-Time-Courtesy.

I had already taken back the bass and credited the buyer(Which was the only right thing to do IMO).

FEDEX told me to keep the broken bass and I sold it for parts here on Talkbass.

The entire time I was polite and courteous to each representative and I believe that's the only reason I made out on the claim.

You also have to keep in mind that there are very many scammers. At one time it was simple to get a claim approved and people were getting paid for shipping broken items all the time. The shippers got wise to it and started fighting every claim based on past experiences.

 

[chriss]

Great news! But what do they mean about the one-time restock option? I hope that doesn't mean they will deny any future claims. If that is the case, they shouldn't make you pay for their safe shipping policy if you choose to sell anything on there again.

Unsure

That does not mean they will not pay future claims. What it means is that they paid this claim without following their procedure ( estimate, confirmation it was unrepairable, etc. ) as a courtesy to their customer. That is what they are saying is a one time accommodation. A lot of factors are involved in a decision like that. Customer satisfaction really is important to most companies. But also, sometimes it is just less expensive and time consuming for the company to just settle and be done with it.

The cost and impracticality of shipping it back to the OP in a broken case and the almost inevitable damage that would come shipping it like that. The cost for bench time for an estimate and to continue to process the claim.

Whether you agree with them or not, their stated procedures would have allowed them to dig their heels in and insist on it being sent back and repaired. Instead, they chose to err on the side of the customer. That should be reassuring. I have represented companies that take very good care of their customers and have seen management do this many times. I have also seen companies that did not and they treated their customers terribly. I did not last long in those situations as I want no part of that.

All the communication you posted from them was polite and professional. All in all, it seems to have been handled well and I see no reason to criticize Reverb's response.

Glad it worked out for you.

 

[FunkHead]

That does not mean they will not pay future claims. What it means is that they paid this claim without following their procedure ( estimate, confirmation it was unrepairable, etc. ) as a courtesy to their customer. That is what they are saying is a one time accommodation. A lot of factors are involved in a decision like that. Customer satisfaction really is important to most companies. But also, sometimes it is just less expensive and time consuming for the company to just settle and be done with it.

The cost and impracticality of shipping it back to the OP in a broken case and the almost inevitable damage that would come shipping it like that. The cost for bench time for an estimate and to continue to process the claim.

Whether you agree with them or not, their stated procedures would have allowed them to dig their heels in and insist on it being sent back and repaired. Instead, they chose to err on the side of the customer. That should be reassuring. I have represented companies that take very good care of their customers and have seen management do this many times. I have also seen companies that did not and they treated their customers terribly. I did not last long in those situations as I want no part of that.

All the communication you posted from them was polite and professional. All in all, it seems to have been handled well and I see no reason to criticize Reverb's response.

Glad it worked out for you.

Agreed 100%!

 

[Fuzzbass]

Because of annoying buyers, and what the OP went through, I usually sell to a local used music gear store. Sure, I take a financial hit by having the store take the risks, but the process is super easy: I know what they pay for used gear in excellent condition, and they know that I know, so haggling is rare. (Small side benefit: as a good customer, they give me their best prices right off the bat when I'm buying).

I'm not saying the OP or anyone else should do this. The "convenience fee" of 15-30% adds up over time. Just sayin' it's worth it for me.

One-Time-Courtesy

Shorthand for "We fight every claim as hard as we can, so expect the same fight next time even if circumstances are identical".

 

[chriss]

Shorthand for "We fight every claim as hard as we can, so expect the same fight next time even if circumstances are identical".

I know that's the perception, but that has not been my experience. It's more that they are not going to pay claims that don't meet the terms and conditions of the agreement or policy. I don't recall seeing where they stated they would not pay, only that they needed to verify it was unrepairable.

I would say it is more accurate to say they are going to fight to not pay claims they don't have to.

Their agreement states:

• If the item is repairable after shipping damage, Reverb reserves the right to cover the cost of repairs in lieu of a full claim payout to the seller, so the item can be re-sold.

So they could have delayed paying the claim till the estimate/diagnosis was submitted. They never disputed that it was damaged or even questioned the packing. So a claim was going to be paid, it was just a matter of how much.

Keep in mind as well, that insurance fraud costs companies and the government billions every year. While that clearly wasn't the case here, companies always have to watch for that.

But you are right in that if it is the same circumstances in a future claim it is unlikely they will make the same accommodation ( calling it a total loss with out documentation). Though really they were not fighting the claim, just trying to get the info the needed to complete the process. I did not see where a determination was made. The situation was made all the more difficult because the buyer did not seem particularly helpful (no pictures, etc.)

I also agree about just selling to a local store to avoid this. I am fortunate to have an independent guitar store near by that is run by long time local folks. I figure I may not get as much but I have used the gear to make money and it was a write off when I purchased it.

This post is really not meant to argumentative, as you are essentially correct, but I have handled 10's of thousands claims and customer concerns for Fortune 500 companies and I think they handled this well. In my opinion the broken case was the biggest obstacle and I suspect it played a significant role in their decision. How could you ever tell what was initial damage and what was secondary damage from return shipping in a substandard case.

 

[PhatBottomBass1]

I know that's the perception, but that has not been my experience. It's more that they are not going to pay claims that don't meet the terms and conditions of the agreement or policy. I don't recall seeing where they stated they would not pay, only that they needed to verify it was unrepairable.

I would say it is more accurate to say they are going to fight to not pay claims they don't have to.

Their agreement states:

• If the item is repairable after shipping damage, Reverb reserves the right to cover the cost of repairs in lieu of a full claim payout to the seller, so the item can be re-sold.

So they could have delayed paying the claim till the estimate/diagnosis was submitted. They never disputed that it was damaged or even questioned the packing. So a claim was going to be paid, it was just a matter of how much.

Keep in mind as well, that insurance fraud costs companies and the government billions every year. While that clearly wasn't the case here, companies always have to watch for that.

But you are right in that if it is the same circumstances in a future claim it is unlikely they will make the same accommodation ( calling it a total loss with out documentation). Though really they were not fighting the claim, just trying to get the info the needed to complete the process. I did not see where a determination was made. The situation was made all the more difficult because the buyer did not seem particularly helpful (no pictures, etc.)

I also agree about just selling to a local store to avoid this. I am fortunate to have an independent guitar store near by that is run by long time local folks. I figure I may not get as much but I have used the gear to make money and it was a write off when I purchased it.

This post is really not meant to argumentative, as you are essentially correct, but I have handled 10's of thousands claims and customer concerns for Fortune 500 companies and I think they handled this well. In my opinion the broken case was the biggest obstacle and I suspect it played a significant role in their decision. How could you ever tell what was initial damage and what was secondary damage from return shipping in a substandard case.

I enjoyed this assessment very much. No one in honest business has a plan to mess anyone around. Insurance is there to protect everyone from the risks associated with interstate commerce on all levels of engagement. The problem is the opportunists attempts to abuse the process. However, I am up front with the parties involved and my willingness to see things through to a proper conclusion.

I, personally, have nothing but good words for Reverb. I use the platform, generally, for small items or purchases. Larger items, I would rather do as suggested with either consignment or outright sale to a super pre-owned store in my area with some of the best people I have ever met in the business!

My angst comes from individuals in their folly and schemes gone awry! I have glowing feedback buying and selling. I have also become a couple of folks worst nightmares!

Keep playing, buying, and selling! Also, be careful and definitely consider the coverage.

 

[Herrick]

@chriss Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Whether you agree with them or not, their stated procedures would have allowed them to dig their heels in and insist on it being sent back and repaired. Instead, they chose to err on the side of the customer.

Reverb's "stated procedure" in large print is that customers should feel safe and reassured by their shipping insurance. Buried in the fine print are the unrealistic requirements to be covered by said policy. End result: that fine print allows the company to deny pretty much any claim. On top of that, they can then act magnanimous when they do (eventually, finally!) pay a claim that most if not all of us agree is reasonable.

I'm glad Reverb paid, and agree that it was reasonable for them to request proper documentation to prevent fraud. However I believe the current requirements are deliberately excessive, and it's no surprise that this apparently happened after they went corporate (according to what others in the thread have stated).



Not Reverb related: I'm angry about the steady and rapid erosion of consumer rights via fine print legalese in EULAs, etc: literally signing away your legal protection. It's also frustrating that some consumers (and I am NOT referring to you or anyone else here) actually defend this: "of course you got screwed by the fine print, what did you expect?" Not all companies behave this way, but exceptions seem rarer.

 

[chriss]

@chriss Thanks for the explanation.

You're Welcome

 

[DirtDog]

Because of annoying buyers, and what the OP went through, I usually sell to a local used music gear store. Sure, I take a financial hit by having the store take the risks, but the process is super easy: I know what they pay for used gear in excellent condition, and they know that I know, so haggling is rare. (Small side benefit: as a good customer, they give me their best prices right off the bat when I'm buying).

I'm not saying the OP or anyone else should do this. The "convenience fee" of 15-30% adds up over time. Just sayin' it's worth it for me.




Shorthand for "We fight every claim as hard as we can, so expect the same fight next time even if circumstances are identical".

Otherwise known as: “You’re such a persistent bugger that you’re probably not a scammer so we’re doing this to get you out of our hair. This time.”

 

[chriss]

Not Reverb related: I'm angry about the steady and rapid erosion of consumer rights via fine print legalese in EULAs, etc: literally signing away your legal protection. It's also frustrating that some consumers (and I am NOT referring to you or anyone else here) actually defend this: "of course you got screwed by the fine print, what did you expect?" Not all companies behave this way, but exceptions seem rarer.

I don't entirely disagree with you. However, there also should be a degree of personal responsibility. I understand that can be difficult sometimes as life has become so complicated. So people tend to rely on what they are told, and don't take the time to read. The terms of Reverbs shipping protection are pretty clear and concise. But there is so much information to process everywhere that the tendency is to scan it.

The Vehicle Service contracts I used to work with were what was called exclusionary contracts. They listed what was excluded and if something was not listed it was addressable and then coverage would depend on the cause of failure. All you would have to do is either read the agreement, which can be a bit daunting with out guidance. Or just call and ask questions during the 30 day free look period.

There are always people who can answer your questions. It's not that it is fine print, it that there is a LOT of print

When I was working for a life insurance company I had a customer call that was upset that his rates increased. It was a term policy that increased every 5 years. He insisted that that was hidden in the fine print. He had his policy with him so I was able to direct him to the cover page where it stated in the largest print on the page that it was a term policy with increasing rates.

There are a lot of factors at play. There is an overload of information in our lives, critical thinking is not the hallmark of the 21st century and then there are intentionally deceptive sales practices.

The moral is do as much due diligence as possible

 

[Sands]

In looking at the available photos, I think Reverb was fair and reasonable. Once they realized that the OP was in a hardship, they took increasingly extraordinary steps ultimately handling the claim for him without any legitimate photos or inspection. I think going above and beyond should be the expectation for consumers, but we have to keep in mind that there are scammers who will take advantage of such policies. So, it’s important to remain firm on what works for us, and not have some kind of coronary event as a result of misfortunes such as the one experienced by the OP. Easy to say sitting here, but I likely would have been in a similar state given his recent experience with his dearly departed dog. My condolences by the way.

 

[9c1ny]

I noticed this today
Reverb paid him $300 which was what they offered me sight unseen for the case.
I wonder if the buyer conceded the bass was not damaged and cut his losses with a new case

Nothing is either withdrawn nor added to my bank account

 

[9c1ny]

lol low and behold
This is the bass and the gentleman I sold it to. At a VERY healthy mark up no less.
' mint ' condition

Just as I suspected, he was trying to take me for a ride and Reverb almost let him