Funny or Die wants to help Toyota out of this awkward situation it’s found itself in, so the site has posted a helpful video of a cheerfully steely spokeswoman who likes to point with both hands. It’s like she’s shooting good news in your face! Pow pow! And really, it’s true that you can have an awesome garage party without ever needing to take your Toyota on the road, so maybe you should stop being so pessimistic. Video below.
“Toyota Spokesperson: Don’t Panic!” [Funny or Die]
There’s a slight problem with many receipts these days–they’re printed on thermal paper, and over time they fade. Some readers were discussing this in the Kodak warranty thread from earlier this week, and I thought it might be useful to highlight it here for other readers.
Gizmosmonster started the topic by stating the problem prettly clearly:
Keeping receipts is not as easy as it sounds.
So many receipts are now printed on thermal paper. Thermal paper reacts to heat. Case in point- we have a folder of nearly blank receipts for electronics purchases over the last year after my husband rested a big mug of coffee on it while sorting through tax documents. I have also noticed that they fade as they age, even when carefully filed away.
Are there any solutions to this?
I keep all my receipts in a folder in a filing cabinet, and I’ve noticed the same fading issue. Here’s what other readers suggested to Gizmosmonster:
“Photocopy them when new, staple to the original, perhaps with an initial on the receipt before photocopying to ensure that they’re the ‘same’ – it won’t work for EVERYTHING but it’s better than nothing.” – Eilonwynn
“Scan a month’s worth, zip the file, and email it to yourself. Also, burn a copy each month and store it with your receipts.
[Regarding an already faded receipt,] I’m willing to bet if you hit it with a certain light, that you could still read them. Anyone have any suggestions?” –GitEmSteveDave
“Photocopy, and staple both the original and copy to the inside cover of the manual. If the original still fades, you have the copy right there.” – JoeTaxpayer
“Photo copy them when you get ’em. Scan them to your computer too (or instead of copying). That way if you should need them, you can print one (or even email it).
And always keep records of your credit card statements (download the pdf versions of your statements besides downloading the activity to import into your financial software).” – nybiker
As for me, I have a smartphone and a free Evernote account, and I tend to use it for quick captures of signs, merchandise to research later, and sometimes receipts. If you’re better organized than I am, you might find a way to work Evernote into your system as a quick off-site backup for receipts.
Rob’s digital photo frame stopped working a few days ago, so he contacted Kodak to see whether they could help him. He writes that he knew it was at least one month out of warranty because the warranty is for one year, and he’d been given it as a gift a year ago on Christmas. Still, he was hoping Kodak would cut him a deal or do some sort of above-and-beyond thing.
Instead, he found out that as far as Kodak was concerned, it had been out of warranty for over two years.
Rob writes,
What I learned from my conversation with Michael is that unless I have a receipt indicating the specific purchase date, which I don’t since it was a gift, Kodak uses the “Manufacture Date” printed on the frame to determine the begin date of the warranty. The manufacture date on my frame is August 2007. Which means the warranty on my gift frame expired months before I even received it. I just thought it important that before purchasing one of these frames, or any other Kodak product I guess, your readers be aware of this policy.
Oh, and the only way to know the manufacturer date is to open the box and inspect the product itself.Ok, so either way, my frame was out of warranty. In reality, not by much. By Kodak policy, almost a year and a half. Fair enough – out of warranty is out of warranty. I was hoping to get an extension of a couple of months to cover me, but got no where because by Kodak policy, Michael considered it to be WAY out of warranty.
His options, Kodak said, were to pay $120 for repairs, or buy a new frame directly from Kodak for a 15% discount.
For confirmation, he forwarded us an email he received from a Kodak customer relations specialist. In it, she very specifically notes that this is SOP for Kodak, and as far as Kodak is concerned it’s being gracious to even offer this to customers:
In your Kodak EasyShare Digital Frame User Manual, you will find the terms and conditions of the Kodak Limited Warranty which begins with the information:
Kodak warrants Kodak consumer electronic products and accessories (“Products”), excluding batteries, to be free from malfunctions and defects in both materials and workmanship for one year from the date of purchase. Retain the original dated sales receipt. Proof of the date of purchase will be required with any request for warranty repair.Because Kodak recognizes many customers receive products as gifts or fail to retain the receipt, as a goodwill gesture we developed an alternate method of assisting with warranty repair, based on the date of manufacture. By doing so, Kodak goes well beyond many manufacturers’ warranty guidelines in an effort to assist our customers as much as possible. Unfortunately, as you have learned, this additional warranty benefit is not realized by customers if they have purchased or received a product that was not sold shortly after receipt by a retailer.
It’s always a good idea to keep receipts for electronics, and to register them whenever the registration is actually tied to a serial number and not just a marketing trick. In tough times, or when companies just aren’t doing so well, they’re going to look for any reason to not spend any money on you–even when it probably means losing you as a future customer.
For example, look at what Rob says Keurig did for his wife when her coffee maker–also a gift that didn’t come with proof of purchase–died on her:
As an example of exceptional customer service, my wife received a Keurig coffee maker for Christmas 2008. It had a one-year warranty but stopped working a little over a year later and since it was a gift, she had no receipt. She called Keurig. They sent her a brand new retail packaged replacement that arrived two days later. All they asked was that she send one small part back to them, which she did. They now have customers for life.
I did not expect a brand new frame from Kodak. But it seems you should have more flexibility in your coverage options. As I stated below, my frame was out of warranty either way. Reasonable consideration would have satisfied me, but I did not receive any.
Your warranty policy and lack of consideration will prevent me from giving any Kodak product as a gift. I have done so in the past. My daughter has one of your digital cameras and my mother-in-law has one of your frames. I now know that they won’t be covered by Kodak if they have a problem.
Carla is pretty angry at Godiva because the chocolatier won’t take her complaint seriously. She says she cracked both a porcelain veneer and the tooth underneath on a chocolate covered pretzel last October, and Godiva has told her, “We sent you an apology gift, what more do you want?”
On October 6th 2009, I cracked my porcelain veneer on a Godiva chocolate covered pretzel which resulted in a replacement crown and numerous frustrations in dealing with their customer care department.
In fact, the pretzel was so hard it even broke my tooth underneath! When I checked the canister for the best by date, I was appalled to find no best by date at all!! I emailed the customer care department informing them of my circumstances and was initially impressed with the quick response.
Soon after, I was disappointed to find that my claim, and my request to have my dentist fees reimbursed, was not taken seriously. At one point a rep actually said to me “I see we sent you an apology gift. I don’t understand what else you are looking for.”
WTF?!?! I had reached out many times to follow up and was finally handed off to a supervisor. In speaking with her, she informed me that both my dentist and I needed to fill out an incident report. In that report, my dentist stated my veneer was a “virgin” tooth, in impeccable condition, and should not have broken. I returned the reports in early December and have called this supervisor many times for a response. She refuses to discuss the matter with me claiming cases of this nature must be handled in writing. She also claimed I would be receiving a formal letter from the company explaining next steps. To this day I have not received any letter or a satisfactory resolution!
I work for a packaged goods company and I KNOW we would never treat our consumers this way.
Update: Carla has been reading through the comments and wanted to clarify why she’s upset with Godiva. “I think the point of my frustration was lost in the emotion of my original email,” she writes. Well, I understood her original frustration, but here’s a little more info for the commenters who don’t get why she’s upset:
For the record, if they declined my request for compensation, I would be disappointed but ultimately have to accept it. But by refusing to return my phone calls and ignoring my emails, they have essentially said they don’t care. A simple, direct answer is all I seek.
The apology gift they sent me was only after I emailed and called many times asking for a
status update. Each customer care rep I spoke with claimed they couldn’t help me, that they would escalate my claim to a supervisor, and I would hear back the next day. I never did.
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING: We’ve got a bunch of live wires in this particular thread, so just to be absolutely clear: Carla never mentioned a lawsuit, and I never mentioned it. Feel free to discuss the general topic of litigation against companies with each other, but don’t attack the OP directly over the topic of lawsuits.
This may come as a surprise to exactly no one, but it looks like most customers of big national banks are less likely to believe their banks are trustworthy, according to a new Forrester poll. Even less surprising: the same poll is done every year, and it’s always the same big banks at the bottom of the list. A Forrester VP explains, “They are public institutions who are in business to make money for their shareholder and inevitably, that shows to customers.”
Actually, Wells Fargo/Wachovia scored considerably higher than the other big banks, but the real winners in the poll are credit unions. After that comes USAA, then ING Direct and then regional and state banks.
Here are the 7 least trusted banks, with HSBC being the least trusted of all.
“The Least-Trusted Banks in America” [Yahoo Finance] (Thanks to Coelacanth!)
Have you been noticing more and more lately that no matter which online retailer you visit, you have to add the item to your shopping cart to see the price? Blame it on manufacturers, who are taking advantage of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling to be more aggressive about controlling pricing online, writes the New York Times.
Ever since that decision, retailers say manufacturers have become increasingly aggressive with one tool in particular: forbidding retailers from advertising their products for anything less than a certain price.
For offline retailers like Wal-Mart Stores and Best Buy, that means not dropping below those prices in the circulars and ads in newspapers. But online retailers have a greater burden. Manufacturers consider the product pages on sites like eBay and Amazon.com to be ads, and they complain whenever e-commerce sites set prices below the minimum price.
The practice has spread from consumer electronics to things like sporting goods and books, and obviously it ruins the idea of transparency online–such unlisted prices keep those listings out of price comparison searches, for example.
The article says manufacturers argue if they don’t put a stop to steep online discounting, it will be a race to zero and everyone will lose–brick and mortar stores will be unable to compete and stop carrying goods entirely. Somehow I don’t think the hands-on experience of a brick & mortar store will ever lose a certain appeal, particularly if you can match it with quality customer service and expert help.
“The Fight Over Who Sets Prices at the Online Mall” [New York Times]
I think we can all agree that Jobs and his crew at Apple are a bunch of visionaries when it comes to gadgets, online stores, and now getting really, really screwed by an iTunes purchase. Joel writes, “I just got a call from American Express stating that my recent purchase for iTunes plus for my entire library (cost $146) has been charged to my account over 300 times and is currently still being charged. I have called Apple to have them stop charging me and they told me the only thing I can do is cancel my card. There is no number for iTunes and I have sent multiple messages to them without response via email.”
Mistakes happen, and apparently there was a hole in the UPS box and all the rings fell out. No really, that’s what this customer’s wife was told when she asked for an explanation of where their rings were. Now the customer says Kay Jewelers won’t give him any other information, or even show him photos of the rings after they were sent to the warehouse. They’ll replace them with jewelry up to $500, but nothing higher, and if he wants to find out anything else he’ll have to lawyer up. Here’s his story.
My wife and I and I live in New Mexico and just got married in December 2009, and we took our rings to Kay Jewelers in the local mall to get re-sized. First off they were family heirlooms so they were very important to us and irreplaceable. Mine was my grandfather’s and hers was from her great-grandfather.
Well they took the rings, gave us our receipt and told us they would be ready on January 9th. On January 8th they called my wife and told her that the the warehouse was running a little behind and they the rings would be in the following Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday (that is literally what the message said). So we called them back that Monday and the manager said that the package was shipped and that it would be in in a few days.
That Wednesday the manager called my wife again and said that UPS was holding the box for an investigation but that our rings were there and everything was fine. The manager also said that we would need to provide proof that the rings were actual heirlooms, which would be hard to do since both the rings from the late 1940s. For the next week the manager kept telling us that UPS was still holding the box and that they weren’t saying why or giving out any form of information.
She also then decided to tell us that Kay was not supposed to take heirlooms in the first place because there was a risk of them being lost. I found that odd because that is something she should have told us a week ago when she found out they were heirlooms.
The next week my wife and I went to the actual store where the same manager told us that the rings were now totally gone and asked us what a suitable replacement would be. My wife then tried to tell her what a suitable replacement would be for us but the manager kept interrupting saying she couldn’t do that and that they would only replace the rings up to $500 (all we asked for was two bands and a $100 engagement ring all of which was below $500). Since the manager refused to cooperate and help us out, we decided to call the Kay Jewelers corporate office and see what they can do.
They, of course, told us the same thing the manager did which was basically your rings are lost and to deal with it. My wife then asked the man at the main office that answered, if he can have a copy of the investigation report UPS made. He said no because other people’s info was on it but he can find out what happened for us. About 30 minutes later he called us back and told us that the UPS report said there was a hole in the box and all the rings fell out.
A few days later we called back to the local store and asked the manager if they took pictures of the rings at the warehouse before or after the resizing to which she said yse. We then asked if we can get copies of the pictures, she said she would have to call the main office and ask. Fifteen minutes later she called back and said that they will be mailing out the pictures and that they should be in in a few days. Well 4 days later my wife and I went back to the store to see what was up with the pictures to which the manager said that now we can’t have pictures and if we want to do anything else besides replace the rings we would have to get a lawyer. Which is interesting since she already said that the main office was mailing out the pictures.
It has been week since we were told we now need a lawyer (which we are now getting). All in all I, personally, feel as though Kay is being very very irresponsable about all of this and rather carefree. As for the manager, both my wife and I think that she has been lying to us about this whole thing since she kept contradicting her self every time we spoke to her.
Well I just thought people would like to know how Kay handles things.
If you visited the strip club Marilyn’s on Monroe in Toledo, Ohio, last weekend and paid the cover charge for their “Lap dances for Haiti” evening, congratulations, you helped the club raise nearly $1,000 for a local charity that’s trying to send a container of relief supplies to Haiti. Oddly–as you already know if you attended–there were no actual lap dances because they’re illegal in Ohio. The local charity says they need $5,000 to send the supplies, but luckily two other area strip clubs are staging their own fundraisers later this month.
“Toledo strip club puts cover charge into quake relief” [Toledo Blade via Boingboing]
The Generation 2 crib, which was sold by ChildDESIGNS until the company folded in 2005, is being recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) after reports of three infant deaths and 28 other safety incidents. Usually in a recall like this, the manufacturer offers to send out repair kits or replacement parts, but as the manufacturer no longer exists the CPSC is urging consumers to stop using the crib for good, effective immediately. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re out the $60-160 dollars that it cost.
The CPSC says you should contact the store where you bought the crib, and you should receive either a refund, a replacement crib, or a store credit. If the store refuses to cooperate, call the CPSC’s hotline at 800-638-2772 and report it.
“Generation 2 Worldwide and “ChildESIGNS” Drop Side Crib Brands Recalled; Three Infant Deaths Reported” [CPSC]
“Generation 2 crib recall: Stop using your crib now, CPSC warns” [Christian Science Monitor]
In yesterday’s Money section, USA Today talked to some consumers who refuse to carry credit cards, and looked at the hidden costs. One 24-year-old says they make her uncomfortable; a guy working at a gas station to pay for college says he doesn’t want to get accosted by endless junk mailings once his name enters the pool of potential customers. Then there’s the bankruptcy lawyer who canceled his cards on principle 8 years ago, after seeing how lenders behaved when their customers suffered financial setbacks:
“Any time there’s even a hint of a financial issue in the consumer’s life, the credit card company will raise the interest rate to the high 20s, or 30%,” he says. “They’ll do anything they can to make life as difficult as possible.”
Of course, there are some drawbacks, for instance the loss of extended warranty and purchase protection that comes with most credit cards. The most significant cost is that it makes it much harder to build up a good credit profile, although the 24-year-old managed to still get a car loan by combining her income with her fiancé’s credit history.
“More consumers just say no to credit cards” [USAToday]
Starting in May, American Airlines will sell blanket-and-inflatable-pillow packs for $8 each on domestic flights longer than 2 hours. If your flight is under 2 hours and you tend to get cold on a plane, relax: you can’t shiver to death in under 2 hours, and by then you’ll be at your destination. Or, okay, still on the runway at your departure spot, raiding your carry-on for snacks. You might want to bring a light jacket.
The AA blanket and pillow come with a Bed Bath & Beyond coupon good for $10 off any purchase over $30. By comparison, discount airline JetBlue sells its blankets for $7, and includes a $5 off coupon for BB&B with no minimum purchase.
“American Airlines to charge $8 for blanket, pillow” [Dallas Morning News]
Knowzy.com, the website that’s been tracking which Jack in the Box stores were offering free Wi-Fi, reports that the restaurant chain has pulled the plug. The Wi-Fi offer came with the installation of HDTVs that displayed ads in the dining area, but those are gone too: “In mid-2009, the TVs and the Wi-Fi began disappearing. By the time McDonald’s made their free Wi-Fi announcement in December, Jack had completely dismantled his Wi-Fi network.”
Knowzy says it spoke with a Jack in the Box employee who said the chain really was after the HDTVs, and the Wi-Fi was just an added benefit to the deal they struck with a company called RippleTV. That deal has apparently ended and RippleTV was acquired by another company last fall.
Knowzy says that even though the official program has gone away, there are at least six franchised locations (all in California) that are still offering free Wi-Fi unofficially, perhaps in a local effort to remain competitive with Wi-Fi-blasting McDonald’s locations. They’re listed on the Knowzy page.
“Free Wi-Fi at Jack in the Box is Gone!” [Knowzy.com]
This summer Californians will be able to vote on Proposition 17, which if passed will allow insurers to bypass some legal restrictions on how much they can charge for auto insurance. Mercury Insurance Group is a big proponent of the proposition, but maybe that’s because it’s been possibly sidestepping the law in recent years anyway. Hey, making it legal will just prevent another state report like the one Carla Marinucci at the San Francisco Chronicle obtained, which contains findings that Mercury “has engaged in practices that may be illegal, including deceptive pricing and discrimination against consumers such as active members of the military and drivers of emergency vehicles.”
Here are just a few of the findings in the report, according to the paper:
In its reporting, the state found evidence that Mercury may have violated state laws by:
— Flagging some consumers for higher rates if they had been in an accident, even if it was not their fault.
— Not immediately granting coverage to applicants including military personnel on active duty, “artists,” those employed “in the entertainment industry as actors, dancers, etc.,” and emergency vehicle drivers.
— Raising insurance premiums after its sales agents quoted prices for discounts for which the consumer was not eligible. The department said this was the single largest category of complaints it received about the firm.
— Collecting higher premiums than allowed by law by requiring its brokers to return part of their fees to the company.
— Requesting information about customers’ “national origin,” a practice that the department said “could raise questions about the legality of Mercury’s personal automobile policy cancellation and non-renewal decisions” under state law. Mercury agreed to block such data after the state investigators raised concerns.
State officials said the report uncovered 25 issues or questionable practices by Mercury, seven of which remain unresolved.
“Insurer may have violated law, report reveals” [sfgate.com]
The next time you stay at a bed and breakfast and you see a kindly old couple lingering in the common room after breakfast, be suspicious! The Wolffs have been scamming inns, hotels, rented homes, and bed & breakfasts since 2005, reports the Boston Globe. They offer to pay via check, and until recently–when they stayed in one place so long that they were still around when the check bounced–nobody ever thought they might be pulling a fast one. They’re due in court this month for defrauding several inns over the past summer.
“The Wolffs at the door” [Boston.com]
If record labels decided to pull some of their songs from the Zune Pass service in the past couple of weeks, they did a poor job telling Microsoft about it. The company seems to be as in the dark as Zune Pass subscribers about why songs, albums, or entire discographies have gone missing. Ars technica reports that a Microsoft employee wrote on a Zune forum, “We are investigating your reported missing albums indicated in this post—and will come back to you as soon as we understand why they’re missing.”
“Microsoft investigating disappearing music from Zune Pass” [Ars Technica]
The Daily Beast has published a short profile of Jeremy Selwyn, a web developer in Massachusetts who runs the snack food review website Taquitos.net. Selwyn started the site about ten years ago, and now he has nearly 4.5 thousand different entries on various chips, candies, pretzels, and whatever else can be combined with salt and flavored powder. Naturally I immediately checked out the “Worst Chips Ever” section, which includes an awful lot of sea creature flavored abominations. Apparently sour cream and clam isn’t a good idea for a chip.
“The Snack Critic” [The Daily Beast]
A judicial commission for California judges censured and barred the recently retired judge Brett C. Klein for showing bias, abusing authority, and grandstanding to the press. At issue was his January 2009 alteration of a class action settlement, where he ordered everyone, including the attorneys, to be paid the same way: via $10 gift vouchers from a woman’s clothing store.
The suit was filed by a California woman against Windsor Fashions because the store demanded ID from customers who paid with a credit card. The store settled in November 2008, and agreed to pay the attorneys $125,000 and the woman $2,500. Everyone else who was part of the suit, however, was to be paid a $10 gift voucher.
In January of last year, Judge Brett C. Klein sat in for an ill colleague at a final “fairness hearing” to approve the settlement. He was not amused by the terms, and he changed them so that everyone was paid in store scrip.
The Recorder asked Klein about the commission’s statement that he had been sarcastic to the attorneys at the hearing:
Klein said Tuesday he was dealing with difficult lawyers in the class action and started talking “more bluntly” with them when they evaded his questions about the final order.
“My job was to make my ruling the best I could and at the time I thought that was the correct ruling,” he said. “So I can’t really regret having done my job.”
According to that same article, Klein ordered reconsideration of the ruling later, so presumably the lawyer and plaintiff got actual cash in the end.
You can read the decision here:
Decision and order imposing public censure and bar pursuant to stipulation (PDF) [CJP]
“Retired L.A. County judge disciplined” [Los Angeles Times] (Thanks to Ellen!)
“Judge Censured for Ordering Lawyers to Be Paid by Retailer Gift Vouchers” [The Recorder]
A store in New York City called Oh Nuts, which apparently sells nuts and nut-based goods, told the blog Search Engine Land that someone from Google showed up and took a series of photos of the interior as part of an upcoming “Google Store Views” service. Google has officially said no comment, so I guess now it’s a waiting game to see if this shows up as an offshoot of Google’s street view offering, or if Oh Nuts reports in the next few days that they’ve had their entire inventory stolen by nut fiends who knew the layout suspiciously well.
“Google Maps To Add “Google Store Views”” [searchengineland.com]
New York City’s NY1 news channel has produced a news segment on the woman who was arrested for paying with AMEX gift cards at a Best Buy. If you read our earlier post, you already know most of the details, but you can see the problematic gift cards and hear Ilona describe the experience in her own words. It turns out that after she was released, she went back to Best Buy for either a refund or the DVD player, but had to leave without either one–she was told she’d have to contact American Express to resolve the problem.
NY1 says they contacted Best Buy and received the following statement:
We are really sorry this incident occurred and send our deepest apologies to Ms. Klaver.
When the card was rejected, the employee tried to… figure out why, but mistakenly provided the card issuer with the wrong card information.
The news station says American Express has sent her a $175 gift card as a “goodwill gesture,” and that Best Buy has since offered to refund her purchase. Ilona has rejected Best Buy’s offer and is filing suit.
“NY1 For You: Gift Card Glitch Lands Shopper In Jail” [NY1] (Thanks to Anthony!)
RELATED
“Best Buy Sends Customer To Jail For Paying With AMEX Gift Card”