My point (which I should’ve been clear about) is that the store (through the watch guy and the clerk) was specifically claiming responsibility for the defect (no matter what really caused it), then told the OP that he had to pay for them to fix the screw-up that he just claimed responsibility for.
I think the OP’s upset is understandable, given that. If nothing else, if the guy was an “idiot,” why doesn’t that STILL support the OP’s basic gripe?
You do know I never said that, right? But nice straw man - does he get a hat?
Even the worker does not deny causing the problem. How is the customer still wrong?
Oh that’s right, you’d have sent the fellow packing for not bringing you a sufficiently profitable and low-risk piece of work. This will give you extra time to dick around on the internet, so it’s all win for you, at least until the power bill’s due.
Just for some clarification: I didn’t talk to the watch repairman directly, it was relayed to me by the clerk. There was no admission of guilt - he was guessing that some debris got in there while he was working on it, but he wouldn’t know for sure until he took the back off and looked around in there. And that’s what I would be paying for. As astro suggested, it could be something completely different due to the age of the watch and not the fault of the watch repairman.
And yeah, the watch does have some sentimental value, but one thing that has always annoyed me about it was not being able to change the battery myself. Maybe it’s time to start looking for a new watch, one where I have access to the battery and can do it on my own.
See that Leaper? He was guessing.
In my mind the OP was owned a removal of the back at no charge to determine the cause of the malfunction. At that point a decision could be made as to fault.
But there is no way to determine fault without removing the back.
It’s not business wise to accept every headache that comes your way. In the long run it’s better to turn the headaches away.
If you have unprofitable customers that you satisfy they will keep coming back over and over and continue to be unprofitable.
It’s the old 80-20 rule. 80% of your problems are caused by 20% of your customers. You really want to focus on those 20%? Go right ahead.
If the job isn’t profitable, you have probably not priced it correctly.
Being a jeweler requires a high degree of skill and artistry, the sort one cultivates for reasons beyond making as much money as one possibly can. Would you advise a concert violinist to turn down a solo as it would be too risky, they might make a mistake and lose their paid position in the orchestra, and they should just play it safe and play the easy parts?
I doubt that not getting rid of enough customers has really been the downfall of many businesses. Getting people in the door is one of the hardest parts of selling anything and here they’ve come in prepared to spend. This should be cultivated, not discouraged with an “I could help you but won’t” attitude.
No one said get rid of customers, just not to give away the shop to every problem customer just so he might possibly become some great word of mouth advertiser.
Someone wanting a watch battery replaced is not automatically a “problem customer,” and if the service is priced correctly, the job will be profitable.
And turning down a job that any capable watch repair person can do, changing a battery, is getting rid of a customer. They will go elsewhere for the job and do future profitable business at the place that is willing to do their repair, not the one that turns them away.
The specific example that started this discussion involved the idea that replacing the battery on certain types of older watches often results in a broken watch. How is it not smart business to turn away certain models that you know will give you trouble? You talk about pricing the service correctly but if you raise the price for battery replacement to accommodate your losses on broken cheap old watches, then you’re going to price yourself out of the battery changing business entirely. Businesses make these kind of decisions all the time. Ever see a “local checks only” sign at a business, or “no credit cards?” Those places have decided that it’s worth losing a few customers to not have to deal with bad checks or credit card fees.
The OP wasn’t turned away. He was warned that there would be further charges for further repair. If it turned out that it was obviously the shop’s fault, then yes they should suck up the cost.
Frankly, a Lorus watch is a cheap, low end watch. Why would anybody waste money on it? You can buy a new one for less than $40.00.
You are not talking about a Rolex, here!
Why the rude comment? Did you look at the link for the watch? It’s kind of a unique design and the OP’s had it for a long time. That might be reason enough to get it fixed. Or maybe it has sentimental value.
Read posts #6, 8, 12, and 27.
The OP was not turned away, but some think the shop should not have accepted the job in the first place. I was speaking to that proposed hypothetical situation.
Of course when someone is very, very good at what they do, they are unlikely to turn down a job because it might be hard to do correctly, but apparently being a hack is considered a good business practice by some.
This is getting tiresome. Are you really not intelligent enough to understand the difference between “being a hack” and wisely declining a job that is inherently problematic?
Some Ford V-8 engines are known for having spark plugs break during removal attempts. This is due to design problems, not lack of skill or expertise on the part of people working on them. Those plugs are going to break even in the hands of mechanics who are excellent at what they do. Extracting the broken spark plugs can be rather expensive. Those shops that don’t care to get into a tangle with customers who won’t understand that it’s not the shop’s fault that the poorly engineered piece of crap broke can astutely decide not to accept the job.
In a situation like this, the real word-of-mouth issue isn’t the lack of customers gushing over how nice a job was done. It’s the customers griping about how the shop broke something and wanted to be paid to fix it.
If you aren’t up for the challenge of a particular job, then of course you should decline it. He or she can then spread the word that you aren’t up for the more difficult jobs and people really ought to give the new shop he found a try, as they have expert mechanics.
It’s not a matter of not being up for the challenge of the job, and not a matter of not being an expert mechanic. It’s a matter of not wanting to get embroiled in an argument with a customer who is unable or unwilling to understand that it’s the customers responsibility to pay for whatever repairs are necessary to rectify the situation. And yes, it’s an unfortunate side of human nature that some people, even when clearly warned that there’s a design flaw, plugs are likely to break no matter how carefully the job is done, and the customer needs to agree beforehand to pay for that, will bitch and moan “but you broke it!” and try to avoid paying.
Note that this is different from the OP’s situation where no warning was given of a likely problem. The point is that sometimes it is good business practice to turn away a job that is very probably going to lead to a lose/lose situation, with both the customer and the business unhappy with the outcome, and it has nothing to do with how good a job the business is capable of doing.
The Triton spark plug issue is well-known and it’s not just random luck that determines whether or not extraction is successful. If you are supposed to be the expert, what do you advise the customer to do, throw away their troublesome car?
Pfft. That is ridiculous. Very skilled people routinely turn down jobs they don’t feel comfortable with for a variety of reasons.
Could you point me to a business that you would think epitomizes your style of customer relations? or perhaps describe the policies of your own business operations.