On 07 Oct 2003 02:30:36 GMT, Gould 0738 wrote:

That's a terrible story Chuck. What knid of boat was it?

A fish boat with a misplumbed baitwell.

Could have been built by anybody.

The problem with focusing on the brand name is that people might then assume,
"As long as I avoid brand X, I won't have to take many precautions." Could
have, and undoubtedly has happened to boats built by other companies, too.


True enough, but would other companies have treated the owners so badly?

I recently (this July) bought a SeaDoo Utopia 185 from Profile Motorsports
in Gorham, NH. That is an 18 1/2 foot jet boat powered by a Mercury 200
hp. After checking it out at a nearby lake, I started trailering it to
several lakes in Maine. In early August, the engine quit in the middle of
Rangeley Lake. I tried to figure out what was wrong, but had no luck.
Finally (and fortunately) I got a tow back to the launch site. I took the
boat back to the dealer where they discovered that one of the air injectors
had broken off inside one of the cylinders, scored the piston and destroyed
the cylinder head. The dealer insisted on replacing the engine, and while
the work was being done, he loaned me a new Utopia 205, a more expensive
boat than mine. While it left me with a bad taste for Mercury, I was
impressed that Bombardier and their dealer treated me as well as they did.
--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com

True enough, but would other companies have treated the owners so badly?

The mishandling of the situation can be laid at the doorstep of the individual
sales agency. The builder was responsible for the original error, the error in
judgment and
in customer relations was the result of dealing with a particular branch of a
particular business. It's like any other product. If you bought a Buick from a
bad
dealer it reflects most directly on the dealer and not at all on the Buick
factory; but it is likely to leave you, individually, somewhat soured on buying
another Buick. Did the guy who bought a Buick from the dealer on the other side
of town get screwed or get a "bad car" because that dealer's competitor is a
schmuck? Of course not.

On 07 Oct 2003 14:42:09 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
True enough, but would other companies have treated the owners so badly?

The mishandling of the situation can be laid at the doorstep of the individual
sales agency. The builder was responsible for the original error, the error in
judgment and
in customer relations was the result of dealing with a particular branch of a
particular business. It's like any other product. If you bought a Buick from a
bad
dealer it reflects most directly on the dealer and not at all on the Buick
factory; but it is likely to leave you, individually, somewhat soured on buying
another Buick. Did the guy who bought a Buick from the dealer on the other side
of town get screwed or get a "bad car" because that dealer's competitor is a
schmuck? Of course not.
==============================

Manufacturers in ANY business have a responsibility to their customers
to ensure that dealers are chosen carefully and held to high
standards. For most customers the dealer is the only part of the
corporation they ever see.

Manufacturers in ANY business have a responsibility to their customers
to ensure that dealers are chosen carefully and held to high
standards. For most customers the dealer is the only part of the
corporation they ever see.

I agree completely. I have been a (new car) dealer. So, how do we judge a
dealer and his business? By the first high profile incident where some rude
salesperson or incompetant manager makes a critical mistake? Be assured that's
the incident the public *will* hear about. Or, do we take into account the
numbers of folks who go away quietly satisfied and happily return in a few
years to buy a newer or nicer model?

Think of the dumbest or most embarrassing thing you ever did. Would it be fair
to take that incident and use to characterize you, as an individual, for all
time? Or would it be more accurate to note that it was a tragic exception to an
otherwise fairly OK situation?

The builders do have a pretty good handle on who the truly rotten dealers are.
Their info may vary from an unsubstantiated, one-sided horror story flushed
down the Internet by a PO'd buyer with an obvious agenda.

On 07 Oct 2003 16:55:57 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
The builders do have a pretty good handle on who the truly rotten dealers are.
Their info may vary from an unsubstantiated, one-sided horror story flushed
down the Internet by a PO'd buyer with an obvious agenda.

========================

I have this old fashioned notion that the standard should be somewhere
higher than "truly rotten". Just my humble opinion of course.

I have this old fashioned notion that the standard should be somewhere
higher than "truly rotten". Just my humble opinion of course.


Don't concentrate too heavily on my choice of adjectives. I believe the idea is
sound.

Every person and every business makes mistakes. It is normal to *include* such
mistakes when evaluating overall performance, but not good practice to ignore
all the positive aspects at the same time. If we extended the "negative only"
standard to every other aspect of life, no friendship would survive the first
disagreement, no job would last beyond the first mistake, and no marriage would
endure long beyond the honeymoon.

The individual boat in question was badly plumbed. Because it was *not*
consistent with the builder's standards it did not meet the customer's
reasonable expectations.
How amazing that John Q. Public sees this as a case that somehow *establishes*
that the builder's standard must be to misplumb the live well.

The unhappy customer was bitching *because* the boat was substandard, not
because it was representative of what most people should expect when buying
that make or model.




On 07 Oct 2003 16:55:57 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
The builders do have a pretty good handle on who the truly rotten dealers
are.
Their info may vary from an unsubstantiated, one-sided horror story flushed
down the Internet by a PO'd buyer with an obvious agenda.

========================

I have this old fashioned notion that the standard should be somewhere
higher than "truly rotten". Just my humble opinion of course.

On 07 Oct 2003 14:42:09 GMT, Gould 0738 wrote:

True enough, but would other companies have treated the owners so badly?

The mishandling of the situation can be laid at the doorstep of the individual
sales agency. The builder was responsible for the original error, the error in
judgment and
in customer relations was the result of dealing with a particular branch of a
particular business. It's like any other product. If you bought a Buick from a
bad
dealer it reflects most directly on the dealer and not at all on the Buick
factory; but it is likely to leave you, individually, somewhat soured on buying
another Buick. Did the guy who bought a Buick from the dealer on the other side
of town get screwed or get a "bad car" because that dealer's competitor is a
schmuck? Of course not.

Yes, but if the story is true (and I have no basis to believe it isn't),
then there is plenty of guilt to go around, both to the dealer and the
company who manufactured it. Luckily for me, in my case at least, I was
treated well by both: Profile Motorsports and Bombardier. In essence, the
fault belonged to neither: Mercury manufactured the motor, but I had no
contact with them. Apparently, the dealer wanted to keep me happy, and the
manufacture wanted to keep the dealer happy.

--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com

Yes, but if the story is true (and I have no basis to believe it isn't),
then there is plenty of guilt to go around, both to the dealer and the
company who manufactured it. Luckily for me, in my case at least, I was
treated well by both: Profile Motorsports and Bombardier. In essence, the
fault belonged to neither: Mercury manufactured the motor, but I had no
contact with them. Apparently, the dealer wanted to keep me happy, and the
manufacture wanted to keep the dealer happy.

--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com


IIRC, this whole incident happened on a weekend, and before Monday morning the
outraged consumer had already waded in to the Internet with a story of woe.
That was the last we heard from the consumer.
Could it be that when managment got its hands on the situation things got
straightened out pretty quickly?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
IIRC, this whole incident happened on a weekend, and before Monday morning
the
outraged consumer had already waded in to the Internet with a story of
woe.
That was the last we heard from the consumer.
Could it be that when managment got its hands on the situation things got
straightened out pretty quickly?

No.... there was more time passed than that........ read the story again.
And she *was* heard from again - to say that Bayliner had settled the matter
to her satisfaction - finally. IMHO it was the printing of the story and
the ****storm it ws starting to cause, that got the factory reps off their
asses to resolve the matter. I'm not sure if they got a lawer either - I
seem to think they did.

-W

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
IIRC, this whole incident happened on a weekend, and before Monday morning
the
outraged consumer had already waded in to the Internet with a story of
woe.
That was the last we heard from the consumer.
Could it be that when managment got its hands on the situation things got
straightened out pretty quickly?

No.... there was more time passed than that........ read the story again.
And she *was* heard from again - to say that Bayliner had settled the matter
to her satisfaction - finally. IMHO it was the printing of the story and
the ****storm it ws starting to cause, that got the factory reps off their
asses to resolve the matter. I'm not sure if they got a lawer either - I
seem to think they did.

-W