Oldguyonoldbike

I agree with texbiker and don't think you have any recourse. That being said I definitely would not let it stop there. I would definitely let Scott know about it, because it does hurt their image and I think you've done the right thing to bring it here to the forums. I'm sure a lot of distributors keep an ear to the ground here. I would also at least let local dealers know that the guy is less than honest. They may know that already, but it's good to at least try to make things difficult for him.

cafzali

I get where you guys are going and don't inherently disagree with you. All I'm saying is don't be surprised at all if you get nowhere. Manufacturers like Scott actually look at dealers as their customers, not the end consumer. The only way they're involved with the customer at all is through warranty fulfillment in some cases.

So take the fact that dealers are Scott's real customers and the fact that the OP didn't even buy from an authorized dealer and you can see how frustrating it's going to be for him. Often, bike shops can be a better source of help in this regard because they do have muscle the consumer doesn't have and manufacturers don't like losing reputable dealers who move enough product.

Add to that, a good shop is cognizant of the fact that going above/beyond for someone can help them get a coveted, retail customer. Finally, a shop that sells a lot of Scott product likely has an avenue through which they can reach a higher level of person inside Scott who might actually be motivated to get something done.

cafzali

At the end of the day, this all comes down to legalities and legally, OP is not a customer of Scott. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as an indirect customer in terms of customer fulfillment and service. Generally speaking, warranties aren't transferable and any customer service promises Scott makes would apply to an original purchaser buying from an authorized channel.

AlmostTrick

Now I want Monster to pursue this just to see the outcome. I believe compensation would be available to him if he put forth a little effort. It might not even take making a big stink about it.

Stucky

I'd at least like to see the bum fired- at least it would restore people's faith in Scott- letting us know that they care about the wuality of the people who represnt them; and about those with whom they come in contact with. If i were the OP, I wouldn't be expecting any dough from Scott....but just to know that they "took care business" and were concerned with what happened involving one of their employees, and took approrpiate action, would satisfy me- and I have a feeling that OP feels similarly.

quicktrigger

Anyone that rides a Scott bike is a indirect customer, and has an impression of their bike quality, which often influences direct purchases. With that said, I have never (at least not deliberately) implied that Scott would do anything. In fact I would put the chances at 50% at best. Why? Because most of these types (marketing, financial) take a very short termed view, as they are taught that is all that really matters, and most will be gone elsewhere by the time the longer term problems generated by this thinking take their toll. If one has any doubt to the accuracy of this assessment, one only need to look at the banks for the last 10 years, and myriad other examples. My personal expectation is that the OP encountered a company wide systemic culture, but the only way to be certain of that is to go to the top brass, and really the only hope as well. But then again, I'm cynical and trust very very few companies.

QT

quicktrigger

Legalities matter little in the court of public perception. Public perception often punishes far more effectively than legalities.

QT

AlmostTrick

I wouldn’t be so sure that Scott would not want to compensate Monster for his actual loss at the hands of their agent. Right now, he has a tarnished opinion of the company as a whole... as will likely everyone who hears his story. Fixing that is worth WAY more than a puny $400 to company as large as Scott. It will save them much more than that in potential lost income.

I know of cases where the "squeaky wheel" received compensation even when they were not entitled to it, which certainly is not the case here.

Retro Grouch 

[QUOTE=quicktrigger;17585576 Suspend the rep without pay, and give them 7 days to make amends or be terminated.[/QUOTE]

So as long as he makes amends with this one individual you'd be happy having this yahoo continue to represent you.

quicktrigger

Reading what you want me to say instead of what I did say again. You asked for possible actions for Scott to apply pressure to the rep., suggesting that you held the view that this was not possible. I threw out three hypothetical scenario's. All three hypothetical scenarios were more customer friendly to the OP, than your fire and do squat. You then proceed to try to mis-represent one of them. Nice attempt to bait and switch. Go troll elsewhere.

QT

bkaapcke

Don't beat yourself up too bad. We all get nicked now and then. OTOH, we all have a little 'win' once in a while too. bk

Little Darwin

What did you ask Scott for? If you didn't buy a new bike at a retailer, why should they care? And if you did, they would just refer you to an authorized dealer to correct the issue. Their customer is the retail dealer, not you. Public relations would seem to be enough to at least make you feel better, so they failed at that.

Did they acknowledge that this shyster worked for them at all? Manufacturers in general don't deal with end users, that is why they have dealers who sell their products, so it is not surprising that they wouldn't make restitution for their issue, but they should care about their image. Did you ask to speak to a supervisor? It could well be that the call center person is just trained for certain calls, and had no clue how to deal with your issue... Still not good public relations, but I never expect a person I get initially on a phone to know very much other than their script... if you deviate from their scripted situations, they won't be very helpful at all.

You had the option to back out when the bicycle wasn't what you wanted, but honestly, it was probably your greed and not wanting to pass up a great deal that left you vulnerable to the scam. I am not saying I would have resisted the scam either, but some level of security is always at risk when we go for the super deals on CL or other online sites. I am just really surprised that he is responding at all, and that you got his actual cell number... he is not as good a con man as he could be...

Retro Grouch 

I'll take that as a "No".

quicktrigger

More like irrelevant to the subject at hand. More bait and switch.

tcarl

Well, after reading all 89 posts, my attitude is that if I were considering a bike purchase this spring, Scott's place on my shopping list has just plummeted greatly. I know the company doesn't have any obligation to the OP, and he doesn't expect it, but if Scott brushed him off with such indifference, that tells me a lot about what kind of company I'm dealing with. No thank you, I'll go to someone else. There are good bike companies out there which really do care about their customers. I know, I've had wonderful dealings with one in Wisconsin that makes steel frames.

AlmostTrick

BINGO! This is why I believe that if the OP cared to inform the right people at Scott, he would be compensated pronto.

Stucky

Yeah, AlmostTrick, things like this can affect public opinion immensely. I saw a '13 Scott for sale on the local CL yesterday. Having never had any experience with the Scott brand, in the past I'd look upon them with curiosity- but when I saw the one on CL yesterday, I couldn't help but to be prejudiced against it. It may be a fine bike for all I know, but when I saw it, the first thing that came into my mind was the OP calling Scott about the sleazy rep, and getting blown-off.

DorkDisk

It is unfortunate you got robbed; I hope you get your money back or merchandise. As many others have said, there are several lessons to be learned here about cash sales.

I dont understand what you want from Scott. You say you just wanted to inform them, which you did - yet your sig is pretty harsh, "When considering a new bike purchase, avoid Scott bicycles if you care about integrity and customer service."

This sounds more like a police issue than a customer service issue to me, and as always there are two sides to a story

milkbaby

As I posted earlier, I don't believe Scott should be found liable under the legal concepts of respondat superior and vicarious liability.

Also consider if Scott management asked this rep what happened and he says that he had a personal transaction with the OP who then for some reason went on to harass him even to the point of making up some ridiculous story online and calling management at work with it. Companies deal with people who complain all the time, they decide which cases have merit or need to be taken care of. It doesn't always work out in your favor unfortunately.

Perhaps the best take away from all this is caveat emptor.

quicktrigger

Perhaps the best take away from this is not to risk my money on Scott, or anyone Scott related. A Rep is exactly that, a representative of the company. The Rep represented badly, especially if he was "on the clock" at the time. That makes Scott look questionable, whether legally responsible or not, does not matter.

QT

Monstermash

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner Johnny! Tell him what he's won.....

AlmostTrick

A new Scott bicycle, of course. Well... most of a bike anyways.

quicktrigger

But that not all! Don't forget the invaluable experience of the parts recalled for safety....... You just get an experience like this just anywhere!

Monstermash

You guys are hilarious!

On another note, this thread has been active for about a week with over 2000 views. I wonder how Scott would feel if they knew all the bad press they were getting over a bad experience with their CS supervisor and a shady sales rep?

Little Darwin

I won't buy a bike missing components unless the price is appropriate for me to search out the parts on my own, I don't care what the seller (regardless of what he/she is wearing) promises me. In this case, I would have said, "The bike is worth $xx less because of the missing parts. So I will pay $xx less. If you choose to quickly bring me the missing parts, then you might be the person I buy those parts from. If not, have a nice life."

I also try not to judge a company by how I was treated by a single minimum wage call center worker (possibly not even an employee, but a person who works at a place to which the company outsourced the functionality. If I am asking a question that is not part of a normal script, I will never expect a call center worker to be able to address my concern.