 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
Continued from Part 4
At the time that these events occurred, I had never dealt with a single mail-order supplier that had a policy requiring shipment only to the billing address of the credit card. I have yet to deal with another mail-order supplier having such a policy. I'm told that other companies have such policies. As a consumer, I have to say that they aren't common in my experience... or that other companies implement them in ways that are transparent to the customer.
I have heard from people in the credit card industry who tell me that most credit cards do now have a field in their records for a business address or shipping address, and that such information can be shared with merchants. Whether or not this sharing is common, or automatic, I do not know.
The important thing is, as CompUSA enacted this policy, common sense says that the policy should work most seamlessly with their very own private label credit card. My experience showed that the policy fails miserably with that card. I found that it was impossible to add an additional address to the card in a way that would be useful. Even if the additional address were placed in the card's records, it would be inaccessable to CompUSA's ordering system. There is simply no way to defend this practice as good customer service.
Does it make sense for a retail sales company (whose business is selling items to consumers) to value fraud prevention measures above the ability of customers to actually purchase things? I think not. Certainly, fraud prevention is important, but it must be done in ways that don't prevent customers from buying things. Case in point: at one time, CompUSA had security guards posted at the exits who "inspected" customers' purchases (and sometimes handbags) as a fraud prevention measure. This was very unpopular with customers. It was also of limited use, as the guard could not legally detain anyone who refused the inspection. CompUSA discontinued the practice some time ago. Perhaps their brief flirtation with this form of fraud prevention was an expensive error?
I live in an apartment building. At the time this occurred, my apartment complex would not accept packages on behalf of residents. Therefore, I could either have had the package delivered and left in the hallway, or had the package delivered to my work address. The hallway is not particularly secure, and the item I ordered is expensive and conspicuous. I doubt that CompUSA would have agreed to send it without a signature required for delivery. Thus, it was impossible for me to have the item shipped to my house.
Also, I've ordered items from many other vendors for shipment to my place of work, all without incident.
This is a frequently asked question, even though it is addressed in the article.
I attempted to do this. Originally, the CompUSA Credit Card folks told me that it was not possible to do this.
They suggested that I change the actual billing address of the card, so that my billing statements would go to my place of work, and perhaps change it back later. I don't think that's a reasonable course of action. If I wanted my bills to go to my work, I would have set the card up that way to begin with. There are many good reasons why I didn't want bills going there. I also didn't think that I should have to risk further problems with all these account changes, just to give a sizable bit of consumer business to CompUSA.
Only later did CompUSA's credit card folks figure out a way this might be possible. However, it would have made no difference, as their credit card records would not have been accessable to the online ordering system. It might have helped if I had placed a telephone order, but I had foolishly assumed that a "technology store" would have a functional online ordering system.
In other words, it was patently impossible to follow CompUSA's policy regarding shipping addresses when using their very own credit card on their own web site.
Sure they do. They also have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable, and I suggest that angering customers is not a good way to make a profit.
A balance is needed between the two extremes. For instance, a grocery store fears shoplifting, but they don't put the vegetables under lock and key, because that would anger customers and cause them to lose business -- probably more than they'd lose from shoplifting.
There's some risk in taking online orders, and there's risk in accepting credit cards due to the phenomenon of chargebacks. However, there's also many ways to prevent fraud. If a company chooses to prevent fraud using ham-handed methods that upset customers, they shouldn't be surprised if people complain.
In this case, CompUSA's actions are especially outrageous to me, because it involved their very own credit card. It's reasonable to think that this would give them additional abilities to prevent fraud, because they have both customer records and credit card records. They could check to see if the purchase was unusual compared to my past purchases. They could check to see if the shipment address matched information I gave in order to obtain the card -- my business shipping address matched the employer's address on the credit card application. They could have even had a representative call the telephone number on file for the card and ask me if I had made the purchase. There's quite a few things that CompUSA could have done to verify the order. Some of them would even have reassurred me that they cared about me, and that they were making sure that my credit history wasn't under attack from fraudulent use.
Instead, CompUSA seemed to presume that I was trying to defraud them based on nothing other than the fact that I had ordered an expensive product (out of a catalog of expensive products) and asked to have it sent to work. I was left with the impression that they were looking out for themselves, and not for me. While that might be true, it's not a good idea to tell a customer that!
Further, as I've mentioned elsewhere, CompUSA implemented anti-fraud policies that could not reasonably be complied with by a consumer who wanted to do something reasonable. It is not unreasonable to have a package shipped to your place of work. Requiring that a customer force your private-label credit card into taking down your business address, and then wait on hold forever to tell a human to look in a special field on their screen that's invisible to your automated order system, and then hope that everyone understands the policies... that's not reasonable. I feel it's a case study in How Not To Do It.
If, when the problem with the Catch-22 was first brought to light, they had simply approved the order and then shipped it the next day, I would've been mostly satisfied. It's not unreasonable to me for a company to have some way to call the warehouse and say "listen, we messed up, have someone see to this order personally and get it out today."
When the order didn't go out on time, I expected that they'd get it here by the fastest possible method, without charge to me. I shouldn't have had to fight in order to get the shipping costs refunded when the item was going to arrive far later than it should have.
Considering all the hassles I had to go through in order to complete this order, and considering that most of the hassles were due to policy, procedural, and coordination issues internal to CompUSA, I expected that they would make some token offering of goodwill. This could have been a discount on the item, a free extended warranty, a gift card, maybe even a T-shirt (although that would've been a bit pathetic). This is good customer service, and is common in customer service industries. If the telephone company cuts off your service by mistake, they'll gladly give you a discount on your next month's phone bill... and they generally have a monopoly.
It's interesting that companies like CompUSA feel so callous about their customers that they think they can afford to lose them. CompUSA has historically struggled to find profits, so I'd think they would want to retain customers. If you make a small concession to a customer when you have messed up, you can not only retain that customer's business, but perhaps even make them an advocate for you. Advocates bring more business and more profit. Ask yourself: would you rather do business with a company that acknowledges mistakes with a sincere apology and a goodwill offering, or a company that will disclaim responsibility, imply that you're a crook, and act as if you're lucky they'll take your money at all?
I don't know what they're teaching MBAs nowadays, but sometimes it's not all about short-term profit.
Please note that the article was written at the time of the incident in question. CompUSA may have changed its policies and procedures since then. I don't constantly research their policies. If I am informed of a change, and I can confirm it, I will make a note on the web site.
The most common "factual error" cited is my statement that the shipping address requirements are atypical. I've recently revised the article to clarify that I speak from my own experience, not out of God-like knowledge of the mail order industry. I can't say I've ever dealt with another company that so steadfastly refuses to ship to a business address, and especially not with one that will ship only to a business address if you perform an apparently impossible act with their own credit card company.
Please be sure that you have an issue of fact, and not an issue of opinion, before writing to me with a complaint.
Hey, it's a free country, you can think whatever you wish. I respectfully disagree with you.
If you choose to run your business on the assumption that your customers are committing fraud until proven otherwise, that's your business. I wouldn't want to do business with you, and I expect lots of other people feel that way too.
If you're a customer support rep, well, I've done that job. I know how it is. I know how easy it is to get burned out and forget that the point of the job is to help customers who have problems. They wouldn't call if they didn't have a problem. It takes thick skin to be a good CSR. It's also tough to be a happy CSR if you work for a company that has brain-dead policies. Even so, I'm not about to tell people that they shouldn't raise a legitimate grievance just because it might hurt the feelings of a customer service rep. If you work for a company that would fire you if you followed policy and a customer complained... either your attitude really needs work, or you need to find a new job.
Sorry, no. I have no secret information about CompUSA, no contacts there, nothing that will help you any more than this web site. You're free to use the information in this article, and the techniques I used, in your own quest for satisfaction. There's nothing more I can do to help you.
Probably not. This isn't a "customer complaints" web site. You're free to start your own site, or use any one of the "consumer opinions" web sites out there.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with doing that. However, if you link to it in a way that implies it is your own (such as "framing" the site), that is fraudulent and may constitute a copyright violation. Please don't do that--I will pursue such improper use.
No. This article, like all items on this web site, are protected under U.S. and international copyright law. You must obtain my express written permission before you may reprint the article, copy it to your web site, store it in a persistent cache or archive, or otherwise make a copy of it, other than as required to read it with your web browser in the first place. I am unlikely to grant such permission without appropriate compensation.
macwhiz.com • Photos • Granby Drummer • Bio • Articles • Links • Contacts