ACER Predator X34 is it possible for a QA test
- Thread starter Metros
- Start date
They don't currently offer that service and I doubt they will. Too much time needed to open set up and test monitors. Then what do they do with the stock that doesn't pass the tests? And what happens if a buyer doesn't agree with the analysis of the tester? Too many issues to make it viable I believe
Yeah, it was only an example, if they hand tested it and told me that there was no backlight bleed, dead pixels or IPS glow then I would pay an extra £80 for the monitor.
lol that is also true, but these things are expected on high end hardware
That's the point, they SHOULDN'T be, not at all. If you pay cheap bargain basement price, sure, there's an argument that expecting perfection is asking too much, but on a high end premium product, no way.
Associate
I'm with Legend yet again on this subject. If I'm paying £1000 for a product I expect it to be of pretty decent quality..
I agree.
In a perfect world it would be great but aside from glaring issues like panel damage and dead pixels it can only really be judged by yourself.
Which is where CCR comes in.
This is one of those situations where the following business model could be optimal:
1) Retailer decides the maximum of how many units it is willing to take into storage at a time, for a previously agreed upon time frame
2) Manufacturer ships for free the amount of merchandise it agrees to, to the retailer
3) Manufacturer dictates the minimum price at which the retailer can sell the units
4) Retailer sets the final price, and it will keep 50% of the difference
5) Customer has a 14/30 day grace period, in which time they can return/replace the unit, for whatever reason, with a ~10%/£20 max restocking fee
6) Manufacturer will handle the collection and potential replacement/refund of all the returned units at their own expense
7) Retailer will periodically transfer the sales revenue (minus the 50% profit margin) to the manufacturer
8) After the agreed upon time frame, the manufacturer will at its own expense take back all the units the retailer couldn't sell
With this sort of arrangement, the manufacturer can't be too greedy and dictate the minimum price too high, as the retailer will have to take its own margin in any case. Also, the retailer can't set the final price too high, as the merchandise won't move, and they'll lose in storage and marketing costs, etc.
I think I'll have to justify the 10%/£20 restocking fee:
There is a real issue with customers that purchase multiple products to simply "try out" them and choose the best one. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of discouragement for this type of behaviour, as this increases the costs for the manufacturer/retailer needlessly, which in turn increases the prices for everyone else. Therefore, a ~10%/£20 restocking fee is pretty much the only option. The return iterations will sting all parties involved, which will prevent the customer from going trigger happy, while at the same time encourages the manufacturer to maintain quality standards.
Also, if a manufacturer decides to simply ship the refurbished models as new, that's their choice, but the warranty and grace period is still full, and the (new) customers can still return the units, if the refurbishment was executed half-heartedly.
Win-win-win situation. (manufacturer-retailer-customer)
1) Retailer decides the maximum of how many units it is willing to take into storage at a time, for a previously agreed upon time frame
2) Manufacturer ships for free the amount of merchandise it agrees to, to the retailer
3) Manufacturer dictates the minimum price at which the retailer can sell the units
4) Retailer sets the final price, and it will keep 50% of the difference
5) Customer has a 14/30 day grace period, in which time they can return/replace the unit, for whatever reason, with a ~10%/£20 max restocking fee
6) Manufacturer will handle the collection and potential replacement/refund of all the returned units at their own expense
7) Retailer will periodically transfer the sales revenue (minus the 50% profit margin) to the manufacturer
8) After the agreed upon time frame, the manufacturer will at its own expense take back all the units the retailer couldn't sell
With this sort of arrangement, the manufacturer can't be too greedy and dictate the minimum price too high, as the retailer will have to take its own margin in any case. Also, the retailer can't set the final price too high, as the merchandise won't move, and they'll lose in storage and marketing costs, etc.
I think I'll have to justify the 10%/£20 restocking fee:
There is a real issue with customers that purchase multiple products to simply "try out" them and choose the best one. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of discouragement for this type of behaviour, as this increases the costs for the manufacturer/retailer needlessly, which in turn increases the prices for everyone else. Therefore, a ~10%/£20 restocking fee is pretty much the only option. The return iterations will sting all parties involved, which will prevent the customer from going trigger happy, while at the same time encourages the manufacturer to maintain quality standards.
Also, if a manufacturer decides to simply ship the refurbished models as new, that's their choice, but the warranty and grace period is still full, and the (new) customers can still return the units, if the refurbishment was executed half-heartedly.
Win-win-win situation. (manufacturer-retailer-customer)