This is a story about a lady who, while on a cruise, purchased a ring (a gold ring containing a Tanzanite, and two side diamonds) from a "port-o-call" jewelry retailer. The lady purchased the ring, even after enduring the archaic two-time discount game (think about the last time you visited a car dealer). She was told she had a "30 day guarantee" within which the piece could be returned for credit if it did not meet the quality of, or appraise to, the seller's declarations.
Once home, the lady took the ring to a reputable jeweler-appraiser in her town. The appraiser found the diamonds to be of significantly lower color and clarity than had been represented. He found the Tanzanite to be of less than "finest" quality. The lady sent the appraisal to the seller, and asked for a refund upon return; whereupon she was told that they would not accept the valuation document because the appraiser was also a retailer. They told her she must find an independent jewelry appraiser (not in the retail business) to perform another valuation.
The ring was sent to an independent gemologist-appraiser, who inspected the ring; much as the first appraiser had done. He provided a comprehensive document, correctly describing the principal gemstone in the piece as "Zoisite; the variety [being] Tanzanite"; and disclosed the likelihood of heat treatment for color enhancement (such treatment is widely accepted as usual and customary, but should nonetheless be disclosed. M.Nature still heat treats some of her material without man's intervention). The side diamonds, which the seller described as (H) in color, were found by comparison with color-corrected master diamonds to be (K ) in color. The clarity was also found to be slightly lower than described by the seller. The findings were communicated to the client / buyer in a formal, written document; which she forwarded to the seller.
The seller rejected this appraisal as well; and in a rather ugly attempt to discredit the gemologist, parsed the document over descriptions and gemstone nomenclature. The jeweler then recommended the lady obtain a third appraisal at their expense, in hopes of resolving "vast quality discrepancies" and confusion.
I leave the story unfinished, but offer some observations:
• The seller rejected two legitimate appraisals, which described their merchandise to be something less than was represented. The third appraisal request is nothing more than another delay. Marketeers call this cooperative customer service; realists call it sales retention.
• The buyer is now both frustrated and exhausted, and she is really no closer to receiving what she was promised; or what she really wants: to return the ring, and get her money back. What is next is retaining an attorney.
• What is wholly missing here, is any concept of business acuity. In the event a really unhappy customer would be satisfied with a return and refund; any intuitive, ethical (smart) merchant would make it so. Facilitating such an action would convey a real interest in the customer; would most likely preserve the possibility of a future transaction, and create a positive resonance within the customer's sphere of influence. It would probably even negate the need for an attorney.
• These jewelry merchants (seemingly) have yet to learn that arrogance does not build lasting relationships with today's consumers; but barring my old-school rules, [they] may not even be concerned with return customers.
While the modus operandi of this retail genre' is not new, a "hybrid" jewelry market has definitely emerged in tandem with the growing accessibility to, and appeal of vacation / pleasure cruises. These operations seem to be driven by a "bid/ask price principle"; the consumer being "led" by price, and not realizing (until later) that they may not have purchased quality comparable to that available in their local markets for better value. But for now, the trend continues, so... cruisers, caveat emptor!
Lest I digress further, thanks for reading, QE
