quicktrigger

FWIW, I'm the squeaky wheel. Write up your experience as you have here, and post it EVERYWHERE bike people are. CL, more forums, roadies, mtn bikers, everywhere you can think of. Detail that Scott was uninterested and unconcerned. That you though highly of Scott before, but now you have real concerns about the nature of the company and Scott bikes, and when potential problems arise. Make NO accusation though. Just that you have serious concerns. Make sure that Scott knows about it too. Whether through his own accord or not is irrelevant in the court of public opinion. This reflects badly on Scott, and IT IS within their abilities to do something about it whether legally responsible or not. That is the real issue here. Are they willing to do something to provide meaningful help, at little cost to themselves, and arguably significant benefit to their image. Scott could easily determine who the rep was using time, location, contact info etc (they can't have that many reps), and then proceed to pressure the hell out of the rep to resolve the issue in a positive light for Scott. Or do they do nothing and allow their inaction to reflect very negatively on their company.

Personally, this little tidbit by a regular poster on these forums will be filled away in the back of my head, and Scott will be on the "do not consider" list now.

QT

JJ1330

I agree wth this approach-- and I am not likely to consider Scott in the future if they have so little concern for the quality of their reps. and their own reputation.

Stucky

Yep! This is the sort of thing which reflects very poorly on a company- that they are not concerned with their own image; or what their employees do. It's really a harbinger of how they do business; and how they'd treat customers (even if OP wasn't technically a customer, the fact that Scott simply didn't care about how his experience with one of their employees reflected upon them, says A LOT!).

md11mx

And by the way, when you do a proper boycott it includes ALL their products. PERIOD.
Cheers,
David in Alaska

bruce19

I have a little different take on this. A guy tells you he's a Scott rep and shows up in a Scott van to sell you HIS personal bike. This has nothing to do with Scott other than he was conducting personal business on company time. If you assumed that his association with Scott was some kind of assurance that's your mistake. That's not to say he is anything but a jerk. But, IMO this had the potential for deception written all over it from the get-go. And, if I was his boss he'd be in deep ****. But, Scott has nothing to do with it.

bruce19

I would agree with most of this IF Scott knew he was doing this before he did it and/or found out about it and declined to deal with him.

Stucky

I'm not saying thjat Scott has any responsibility to the OP- I mean, it's most likely that what the rep did was not authorized by nor know about by them- But their reaction to it, and what they do about it, would say a lot about them- that is, once the OP actually makes sure that someone in a position of authority in the company knows about it, by informing them either by certified snail-mail, or actually speaking to said person on the phone.

bruce19

Yes. What I would like to know was what the Scott rep said on the phone to the OP. What I read was a lot along the lines of "they treated me badly" which is a conclusion. I'm not doubting the OP but a lot of people have interactions that are misunderstood by one or the other party. Unfortunately, even if Scott takes action against the employee I'm not sure they can legally divulge to the public what action they took.

Monstermash

There really isn't much to tell. I called and asked to speak with a customer service manager and spoke with a woman named Reagan. I started to tell her about the situation and her immediate response was "Was it his personal bike?" When I stated that it was she was done with the conversation. I tried to reiterate that I wasn't calling for Scott to get involved but rather to let them know what how one of their employees was not representing the company in a a positive manner and she basically told me that they would not take responsibility for his actions. I then asked her if she thought it represented the company in a positive manner when he was driving their truck and wearing their clothing and making promises using his position at the company to assure me he would follow through with his promises and she gave me an attitude and told me he wasn't acting on behalf of the company because he was selling his own bike. Honestly, I don't think she possessed the mental capacity to understand why exactly I was calling.

After that call I thought about it and called back a few minutes later and asked for Reagan's supervisor and the "kid" (he sounded like he was 17 years old on the phone) told me there was no one else I could speak with. To which I asked if Reagan was the president or VP and was told no but there was no one else I could speak to. Honestly it very much sounded like he knew her response wasn't correct and that he was protecting her by not letting me speak with her superior.

StanSeven

Scotts thinking is one of their employes makes a personal deal to sell his bike. In their mind, that's all it is. They probably see an irate and dissatisfied buyer wanting to make trouble. They also wonder how someone can see it's their corporate responsibility.

If you want to get a response, you need to capture the attention of a senior person. Find out who in the organization might be best. Often a senior finance or HR officer is it.

bruce19

+1

It also sounds like the OP ran into some Scott employees who have no "People Skills." That can only come back on them in a bad way. Years ago I had an issue with a Corbin motorcycle seat I had purchased. I called the company (as you did) and got a woman who was truly an abomination. I later found out she was well known as an idiot. I got no relief from Corbin. That was in the mid-'80's. I have spent many thousands (easily) on gear since then but not one cent has gone to Corbin.

quicktrigger

Scott can still easily pressure the rep to make amends at no cost to themselves. Reagan represented the company in the very same fashion as the "rep" misleading the OP. That's two representatives equaling two very poor images of the Scott company culture. You can make all the excuses you want for Scott, but the fact remains they are in a position to provide meaningful help, and are instead representing themselves badly. At best it is lazy and dumb, but much more likely it is very strong evidence of the Scott company culture.

As stated before. They are now on my personal "do not consider" list, right along with all the brands Pacific now owns, and that is not good company.

QT

Retro Grouch 

Or what?

If I ran Scott, assuming everything posted here is fact (and I haven't heard the other side yet), I'd definitely terminate my contract with the dealer rep in question but I would not do anything for the OP.

quicktrigger

Read my replies for what they say, and not what you think they say. They can pressure the rep to make amends without cost to themselves. The or what is their choice. Perhaps the termination, or threat thereof would be making amends. Make resonable amends with the OP and withold the cost from reps final pay check. Suspend the rep without pay, and give them 7 days to make amends or be terminated. So many ways to pressure the rep. And your response of doing nothing is just more of the same crap the OP has run into.

Right now, Scott is right there with Pacific.

QT

BlazingPedals

My take on this story, for right or wrong, is that Scott found out this guy was selling their demo inventory out the 'back door' and terminated him. That's why he's not around anymore, and that's why they don't feel any particular corporate conscience about finishing his deals.

Monstermash

That is incorrect. He is still employed with the company. At least he was as of when I called the other day.

AlmostTrick

This is silly. Any reputable company (and I believe Scott is) would bend over backwards to satisfy a customer and/or protect their reputation. ESPECIALLY if they knew the person who felt wronged was on a campaign to discredit them. And ESPECIALLY when we are only talking $300-400. But you have to contact the right people, and the OP has not done that yet.

If the OP is done worrying about this and not interested in taking it any farther, I understand and respect that.

BlazingPedals

If he's still around, then yes my scenario is obviously wrong.

quicktrigger

According to Bloomberg, CFO is Dave Stevens. Some more digging should turn up and email address.

Dave Stevens: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek

cafzali

A CFO won't be interested in helping you. They lead the team that makes sure the company accurately accounts for expenses and income and accurately projects future expenses and revenue. A CFO has nothing to do with the product side.

StanSeven

A CFO is very influential. Disgruntled customers clearly affect revenue. That is one potential person you might let know.

wphamilton

could try,
from the Scott legal page.

cafzali

Stan, I understand what you're saying and that might work in some organizations. But, as a rule, a product-based person is going to care far more because they realize that a negative customer interaction can spread like wildfire. A CFO is going to look at that situation in many cases and say the guy wasn't even a customer of the company to begin with.

That's the important distinction here. The affected party is not a Scott customer, but a victim of a scam perpetuated by a Scott rep. Dishonest salespeople aren't exactly uncommon, so it's not that much of a "slam dunk" going that route.

Stucky

I think the important thing is just that somebody in upper management is made aware of the situation. If they are not the person to handle such stuff, they will hand it off to the right person. Sometimes it works out good that way, because the big-wigs often don't know about what's going on, but are usually the ones to be most concerned about such things- and even if the person they hand it off to isn't as concerned as they are about the issue, just the fact that they tell the person to handle it, and that they express concern over it, makes the subordinate more likely to take action and do a good job in doing so. And since few people actually take the time and effort to write a letter to an execustive by name, the executives usually pay attention when they get one.

quicktrigger

I understand what you are saying, but your fail to realize that OP is STILL an indirect customer. OP bought the Scott bike, that had to be produced (and lets say bought for argument) from Scott in the first place. That bike is either a sales pitch for more sales of Scott Bikes, or a good reason to pass them by in the future. Poor experiences within a company impact the financial side. There is a local bike shop that I refuse to deal with because I got an attitude even though I love the Specialized bike they carried. So I found the same bike from a dealer in a small town 90 minutes away, and that dealer gave me a significant discount for my trouble. I now make periodic trips to see that dealer, but the one that was a #$#$%!@ gets nothing. Any CFO worth anything will understand this, and will get the problem to the right people for resolution. If the CFO does not understand this, and ignores you, then we would have three points of reference in the company from the bottom to the top. All would be exhibiting the same basic attitude toward the customer, demonstrating the company wide culture.

At this point Scott would be worse than Pacific (they will at least send replacement missing parts etc), and be on the "HELL NO!" list.

QT