Custom shop dissapointment

[canuck brian]

The real guilty party here, is the crappy case manufacturer.

Hiscox cases are solid.

 

[tedtan]

Basically we're talking about an insurance claim + a 6 week string along. Again, for someone so eager, has he actually suggested an alternative? "Skervesen, can you drop ship one case from Hiscox directly to my house?" "Skervesen, can you reimburse me the money for the case so that I can buy it myself?" And they reply the day before the post saying they're sorting it out in the next batch...

But how many times have they claimed to get it sorted out in the next batch, yet failed to do so? The onus is on Skervy, not the OP, to get this situation corrected.

True that. I've talked with other builders who feel the same way - that any action that could damage an instrument in a poorly packaged box could damage it with a couple inches of bubble wrap. That's not my take on it, but I have heard from other guys that ship dozens of guitars, some reputable builders, some less so.

I can respect that what these guys say is most likely true. But as others have mentioned, the point of the bubble wrap is not to further protect the guitar, it's to protect the shipper's back side in those situations where a claim needs to be filed with the shipping company. If the shipper failed to take the appropriate steps in this area, that is blatantly the shipper's fault.

 

[tedtan]

but as a business student and a studying luthier, I can sympathize with the small business owner's perspective on issues like this.

Sympathizing with other's feelings is fine.

But from one who has been involved in growing a small business into a pretty decent sized company, I can state categorically that the way to ensure your own best interests is to take care of your customers. In a situation like this, you suck it up and make your customer happy. That's how you earn repeat business from that customer. That's how you get him to refer all of his friends and fellow forum members to you when they are in the market for a new guitar (or whatever). That's how you take care of your business as well as the customer.

Failing to do that results in that customer buying from someone else next time and telling all of his friends and fellow forum members to do the same. The customer is not always right, but keeping him happy is always in your best interest unless you are losing significant money in the deal (and that includes the overall dealings with that customer, not just the one time transaction in question).

 

[narad]

But how many times have they claimed to get it sorted out in the next batch, yet failed to do so? The onus is on Skervy, not the OP, to get this situation corrected.

Just once, which is why I'm confused at it being spun like it's been a huge lengthy run around.

I can respect that what these guys say is most likely true. But as others have mentioned, the point of the bubble wrap is not to further protect the guitar, it's to protect the shipper's back side in those situations where a claim needs to be filed with the shipping company. If the shipper failed to take the appropriate steps in this area, that is blatantly the shipper's fault.

It is totally the shipper's fault, but the shipper is fully compensating the buyer, so what's the issue? From my perspective it makes more sense to properly pack and file the claim, that's how I would prefer to run a business, but I know these claims can be troublesome even when you pack it correctly. The only way I've seen where you get to avoid a whole lot of hassle on the claim is when you get the shipping company to do the packing, and anyone who has pursued this can attest to it being far from ideal with the kinds of markups they tend to charge.

So to that end I'm surprised by all the people who are playing so much "what if"... a forklift destroys the guitar ... or a guitar goes missing, etc., and then Skervesen says, "tough luck, customer" -- namely because these things haven't happened, Skervesen's reaction to such situations is entirely unknown, and the speculation is completely unfounded. It is, of course, easier to criticize a company's business practices when you're completely fabricating their reaction to some hypothetical future situation.

Really I'm much more offended by the Chiroptera headstock design than by Skervesen's behavior here, which, had they not botched up shipping the case from the first replacement batch, would have been exactly what I expect from good customer service in this scenario.

 

[tedtan]

Just once, which is why I'm confused at it being spun like it's been a huge lengthy run around.

Yes, but that's after having to wait for the claim to be filed and refused, then filed and refused a second time. It would have cost Skervy around $50 to just ship the case out to the customer from the get go in order to keep him happy and then deal with the claim with the courier as a separate issue entirely. And if $50 is putting their business in jeopardy, they need to rethink their business model.

Really I'm much more offended by the Chiroptera headstock design than by Skervesen's behavior here, which, had they not botched up shipping the case from the first replacement batch, would have been exactly what I expect from good customer service in this scenario.

This is true, although I would say they should have shipped the replacement case from the beginning, not after farting around in claims hell for two months.

Research has shown that a business that makes a mistake and then handles it correctly will generate MORE loyalty than if they hadn't screwed up in the first place, whereas a business that makes a mistake and fails to address it properly will engender significantly more resentment and ill will (and lost business). That's why it's so important to take care of customers so long as what they want is realistic.

 

[protest]

It is totally the shipper's fault, but the shipper is fully compensating the buyer, so what's the issue? From my perspective it makes more sense to properly pack and file the claim, that's how I would prefer to run a business, but I know these claims can be troublesome even when you pack it correctly. The only way I've seen where you get to avoid a whole lot of hassle on the claim is when you get the shipping company to do the packing, and anyone who has pursued this can attest to it being far from ideal with the kinds of markups they tend to charge.

So to that end I'm surprised by all the people who are playing so much "what if"... a forklift destroys the guitar ... or a guitar goes missing, etc., and then Skervesen says, "tough luck, customer" -- namely because these things haven't happened, Skervesen's reaction to such situations is entirely unknown, and the speculation is completely unfounded. It is, of course, easier to criticize a company's business practices when you're completely fabricating their reaction to some hypothetical future situation.

Really I'm much more offended by the Chiroptera headstock design than by Skervesen's behavior here, which, had they not botched up shipping the case from the first replacement batch, would have been exactly what I expect from good customer service in this scenario.

It's ok to say that the buyer is being fully compensated when that hasn't happened yet, but not okay to speculate what the company would do if something worse had happened? Their own response showed they have no interest in packaging their products to the standards of their carrier, which means they will not win any claims. They have already publicly placed the blame with the carrier, and asked their customer why he's complaining since he's getting something for free (which he's not fyi, he's getting what he paid you for Skervesen). To me they have brought this speculation on themselves, something that again could have been avoided with a response like the one that took me all of 2 minutes to type.

This is the problem for companies that use these sites as a way to bring in business. They screwed up by letting a non issue become an issue, and now they have this thread. Javier will get his case because this thread exists. He may have gotten it otherwise, but who knows when? He'll definitely be getting soon now.

Skervesen also had the power to change the course of this thread with a proper post, but they didn't handle that or any follow up comments properly.

Research has shown that a business that makes a mistake and then handles it correctly will generate MORE loyalty than if they hadn't screwed up in the first place, whereas a business that makes a mistake and fails to address it properly will engender significantly more resentment and ill will (and lost business). That's why it's so important to take care of customers so long as what they want is realistic.

This is 100% true. And if the guy had come on here with a ridiculous thread about wanting stuff for free, or any other unrealistic demands we would have told him to get lost.

 

[russmuller]

Sympathizing with other's feelings is fine.

But from one who has been involved in growing a small business into a pretty decent sized company, I can state categorically that the way to ensure your own best interests is to take care of your customers. In a situation like this, you suck it up and make your customer happy.

....

The customer is not always right, but keeping him happy is always in your best interest unless you are losing significant money in the deal (and that includes the overall dealings with that customer, not just the one time transaction in question).

I agree with you 100%. That's not to say that it's fair to the business; it's simply the best way to do business. Consumers typically don't care about what's fair outside the narrow view of "I spent my money, I want my goods." If you want happy customers, you just have to deal with it.

 

[Hollowway]

I'm surprised how vitriolic this particular group is getting over a well respected luthier not shipping a case out in time. We seem to give passes to luthiers for just about every sort of violation, and then here everyone is saying Skervesen, and anyone who doesn't think they're the devil incarnate, is making a cardinal sin. Maybe I'm jaded, but to me this isn't a big deal. On October 20 Skervesen admitted they dropped the ball on ordering a new case. So that's basically their one mistake. In other words, most people on here agree that a claim should be opened with the shipper and if the shipper doesn't pay Skervesen should. I personally think the OP is overreacting given that Skervesen said they'd take care of it and admitted their fault. So all this reaction is over a delay and an admitted mistake. Do dishonesty, no trying to deny responsibility Is that the standards we're holding luthiers to now? Seems to me Skervesen has excellent customer service, but made a mistake in getting a new guitar to this guy in a timely fashion. It just seems weird we're lynching them for this. I'll be curious to see if we hold other luthiers to this standard going forward.

 

[fps]

I'm surprised how vitriolic this particular group is getting over a well respected luthier not shipping a case out in time. We seem to give passes to luthiers for just about every sort of violation, and then here everyone is saying Skervesen, and anyone who doesn't think they're the devil incarnate, is making a cardinal sin. Maybe I'm jaded, but to me this isn't a big deal. On October 20 Skervesen admitted they dropped the ball on ordering a new case. So that's basically their one mistake. In other words, most people on here agree that a claim should be opened with the shipper and if the shipper doesn't pay Skervesen should. I personally think the OP is overreacting given that Skervesen said they'd take care of it and admitted their fault. So all this reaction is over a delay and an admitted mistake. Do dishonesty, no trying to deny responsibility Is that the standards we're holding luthiers to now? Seems to me Skervesen has excellent customer service, but made a mistake in getting a new guitar to this guy in a timely fashion. It just seems weird we're lynching them for this. I'll be curious to see if we hold other luthiers to this standard going forward.

People on here like to make as big a deal as possible of very small things. Keeps them entertained I guess. It sucks for OP but it is, as you say, just one issue, a genuine mistake that isn't going to do any harm in the long run, and they're fixing it.

 

[MetalDaze]

I have noticed a general disconnect in couriers' requirements for packing and what large companies actually do.

For example, I have purchased several ESP Standards and Jackson USA guitars over the last few years and these guys basically put the case in a cardboard box with minimal extra packing (usually just on the ends). These were brand new guitars in official manufacturer boxes, which would obviously fail the UPS/FedEx warranty claim test.

In contrast, Carvin is one company that actually did a better job here. They didn't wrap the case in 2 inches of bubble wrap, but rather used Styrofoam brackets on the ends that allowed the case to float in the middle of the box with several inches around it.

 

[Drew]

I must add, i agree that you should get what you paid for.

However, you must have been lucky with your cases, the amount of cases that have had locks ripped off, have had corners crushed, splits, and other damage I've had from touring/flying/giging locally is insane. I'll only fly in flightcases now, same with gigging, main guitars go in heavy ass flight cases.

Man, no arguments to any of this, but you guys should see what my cases look like on a guitar I've owned for a couple years, and I don't even gig. This isn't a big issue - I'd be happy if they kicked me back a couple bucks for a case that got damaged in shipping, but be happy that the guitar arrived in one piece.

Now, I'm wondering how the hell this got to more than 170 posts.

 

[patsanger]

I think the fundamental issue here is this: If you order something and it arrives broken, the seller replaces it or refunds for it immediately.

You don't wait for them to handle insurance claims etc. They handle this immediately and deal with the insurance on their side.

And if they have you ship the case back, they deal with the manufacturer or sell it for cheap to recoup something if everything fails.

This is not the buyer's fault. You paid for something and you did not get it. The way a seller steps up and handles an issue is how you get repeat customers and goodwill.

Imagine what this thread would be like if it had started with "I got this case and Skerv replaced it asap with no problems. This is cool, ordering another!..."

 

[jrstinkfish]

In other words, most people on here agree that a claim should be opened with the shipper and if the shipper doesn't pay Skervesen should.

Skervesen should've sent out a new case immediately. Waiting for the shipper to pay for the case is between Skervsen and the shipper, the buyer should not be involved in that (the buyer did not take out insurance on the package, Skervsen did). Skervsen was going to have to send a new case anyway, why wait two months to hear from the shipping company?

This thread has been blown a little out of proportion, but I think it's good for sellers to see that customers should not be involved in disputes between seller and shipper. You fix the issue and then deal with the shipping company, the customer should only be involved if you want the busted item sent back.


Edit: D'oh, patsanger beat me to it!

 

[protest]

I'm surprised how vitriolic this particular group is getting over a well respected luthier not shipping a case out in time. We seem to give passes to luthiers for just about every sort of violation, and then here everyone is saying Skervesen, and anyone who doesn't think they're the devil incarnate, is making a cardinal sin. Maybe I'm jaded, but to me this isn't a big deal. On October 20 Skervesen admitted they dropped the ball on ordering a new case. So that's basically their one mistake. In other words, most people on here agree that a claim should be opened with the shipper and if the shipper doesn't pay Skervesen should. I personally think the OP is overreacting given that Skervesen said they'd take care of it and admitted their fault. So all this reaction is over a delay and an admitted mistake. Do dishonesty, no trying to deny responsibility Is that the standards we're holding luthiers to now? Seems to me Skervesen has excellent customer service, but made a mistake in getting a new guitar to this guy in a timely fashion. It just seems weird we're lynching them for this. I'll be curious to see if we hold other luthiers to this standard going forward.

To be fair I think most of the vitriol has come from the back and forth between the posters, and not so much aimed at Skervesen. Everyone here, OP included, knows this isn't a huge deal. For me personally I was surprised by how long it was taking for them to take care of a simple problem, but what I really couldn't wrap my head around was posters who were more or less blasting the OP.

To me though Skervesen really dropped the ball with their posts in this thread. Their first post was more or less "we didn't do anything but we're still giving you something for free, and yet you're still complaining" That's not how you handle this situation. The whole mood of the thread changes with a proper response, but they wound up opening themselves up for future hypothetical questioning with the way they posted in the thread. I'm not saying they damaged their rep or anything, but they had a great chance to come out looking awesome in a complaint thread, and they mucked it up. Hopefully they do learn from this experience though, it's a valuable lesson.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

I just don't see it that way -- it's been about 6 weeks since they said it would be accounted for in the next batch of cases, and they botched it up once. Why would the buyer give up on writing one email a month? That just sounds like a weird logic leap to presume that's the plan.

And if the guy was out a case and unable to bring his guitar places, fine, that would suck and dealing it immediately is necessary. That's not the ...case... -- the delivery of the case isn't going to change anything besides concluding the transaction with him getting exactly what he paid for. And more, because he'll have an extra fully functional case. I don't really have any sympathies.

Its been 4 months. Anyone with a brain would have seen the packing pictures and know it was a waste of 30 days to file a claim with UPS because they were not going to cover it. Its a bummer for Skevy, but its all part of the learning process for a business. If he didnt fix the matter, he should have been uber communative about how and when the issue was going to get resolved.,

And as for the 2nd paragraph. Who the hell cares where he had to go with his guitar. Its the principal that he ordered something from a business and that business was paid to solve his problem. He needed a guitar AND a case. Something went wrong? No prob, thats why we have insurance. But it didnt apply here because Skevy is not shipping their guitars properly to be covered by insurance.
Typically, where I come from at least, if you go to a restaurant and they screw up your food, you'll get the meal comp'ed at the least. Just a little gesture of saying sorry for the mess up. When your buying a 2k+ custom, a $100 case should have just been comp'ed. By UPS. But Skevy didnt do what they were supposed to and now its on THEM to do the comp'ing. Getting to keep the broken case should have been a small gesture of good faith.


In actuality, Skevy should have just messaged back the OP upon finding insurance wasnt going to cover it and say something to the effect of "since it doesnt make sense to spend as much money shipping a case to you as the case itself cost, we are just going to refund your money for the case and we are sorry for the inconvience".

I'm surprised how vitriolic this particular group is getting over a well respected luthier not shipping a case out in time.

*I also want to note, that many of us in here sound like we are acting like Skevy is a horrible shitty company for this incident. When the truth of the matter is, we are going on and on about this because there are alot of people in here who are just plain wrong about how business is supposed to function. IMO, this isnt a big deal for Skevy. Not nearly as big of a deal as the fact that many of you are perfectly fine with getting screwed over in situations where the customer is right.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

Now, I'm wondering how the hell this got to more than 170 posts.

Its because alot of us in here are watching the slow errosion of how business is supposed to work in this era of the internet.

 

[tedtan]

I agree with you 100%. That's not to say that it's fair to the business; it's simply the best way to do business. Consumers typically don't care about what's fair outside the narrow view of "I spent my money, I want my goods." If you want happy customers, you just have to deal with it.

Why isn't it fair?

The buyer entered into a contract with the seller and paid $XXXX for a guitar and case and the seller agreed to supply the guitar and case for that price. Once the buyer pays the money, the seller is now obligated to deliver the guitar and case. In the case of a new guitar and case, those items should be delivered to the buyer in new, unused, undamaged condition. I think w can all agree on that.

Here's the part that many are missing: as part of the obligation to deliver the new guitar and case to the buyer, the seller entered into an entirely separate contract with a third party courier services to deliver the guitar so that the seller didn't have to deliver the items in person. This contract does not involve the buyer in the slightest - it is between the seller and the courier service. There might have also been an insurance contract as well, in which case it would be between the seller and the courier service/insurance company. Not only that, but the seller chose to pack the item in such a way that the packing failed to meet the courier's requirements.

Given that, how is it unfair for the seller to be responsible for his own actions (1. failing to pack the guitar properly, 2. entering into a contract with the courier to ship the instrument, and 3. failing to deliver the case in like new condition)? I just don't see how this can be considered unfair. Even if you look at it as if the courier should be responsible for their actions (and I think we can agree that they should be), the packing still failed to meet their requirements, which the seller agreed to in using their services, so they still have an out.

 

[tedtan]

I'll be curious to see if we hold other luthiers to this standard going forward.

I can speak only for myself, but I would apply the same standards to any business with whom I spend my money.

And note that I don't have anything against Skervesen; I just understand how proper business is conducted. I realize that a lot of smaller businesses where the owners are doers rather than trained managers probably don't know as much about business as I do because their focus is on doing what they do (building guitars in this case). So hopefully they can learn about the proper way to take care of a customer from this thread without it being too expensive a lesson (and I mean all luthiers and small business owners reading this thread, not just Skervy).

What surprises me is how readily people on SSO accept sub par customer service and custom guitars that aren't up to snuff. Folks on TGP, as one example, wouldn't accept a lot of people here do. I guess its the age difference since people here tend to be younger and less experienced than people over there.

 

[Hollowway]

What surprises me is how readily people on SSO accept sub par customer service and custom guitars that aren't up to snuff.

Amen to that. When I first started buying high end production and customs I was shocked how crappy the customer service was and how rife with corruption many of them are. I'm jaded, but honestly, at this point if I even get a guitar in a reasonable amount of time from a luthier I'm happy. The one thing the TGP guys DO accept is ridiculously long build times. It's just weird how few luthiers can get remotely close to a quoted build time. It would be interesting for someone to start a thread with how many customs someone has ordered vs how many times they've received a guitar without problems in the quoted build time. For me, it would be a very, very small percentage. I'd love to hold luthiers to a higher standard, but we're not left with much leverage when they don't deliver.

 

[feraledge]

Can we all be honest, this is just dragging out until it gets resolved because everyone wants to be the first one to post up that perfect "case closed" "meme" that they've been sitting on.