Scarlet Dragon update and warranty extension

[Brant Hadfield]

It's important to remember that Red is a business, and like many businesses, warranties are used generally as a marketing tool. Unless someone is willing to go to the trouble of challenging Red in small claims (which would almost certainly be successful for the customer if the information he's provided in this thread is accurate), Red will do what they need to do to maintain their bottom line. They are not in business to make you happy. They are in business to make money. If they can find a way out of paying a warranty claim, or simply ignore their own terms and suffer no consequences they will. Human nature, and "business nature".

[chris morgan]

this is getting slightly off topic but i am SICK TO DEATH of hearing this "business is about making money" adage thrown around. i hear no shortage of apologists touting this in defence of various entities; everything from monolithic institutions like verizon or exxon to even smaller, more focused companies like RED.

of COURSE it's in a business' best interests to make money, but it is absolutely NOT the be-all end-all determining characteristic of success. it seems that as of late people are readily accepting of (if not, indeed, championing) the idea that money is the sole reason for anything's existence, ever.

there ARE indeed people and businesses alike who aspire to something greater than "the bottom line". RED seems to be one of these. they've got a damn profitable situation on their hands, but ever since getting involved in the furor about RED early on and first coveting the R1, i've felt that RED was one of those companies that actually had passion about something other than money.

now of course it would be brilliantly irresponsible to run a business on passion alone - something i'm learning in my own entrepreneurial pursuits - but that doesn't preclude the possibility of finding a balance.

so to excuse a company for allegedly offering bogus warranties as a 'marketing tool' because "hey... they're in business to make money" is abhorrent and unacceptable.

OF COURSE they're in business to make their customers happy. outside of the odd S&M castle in san francisco, most businesses don't last very long if they're abusing their customers. providing an excellent, exciting product and living up to your promises is AS MUCH (more so, in my opinion) a recipe for success as cutting corners and lying. although i'm feeling ever more in the minority on that viewpoint.

i'm not making a judgement one way or the other on the OP's situation or otherwise. what i've read in the thread is a little surprising, but as we don't know all the details, it seems a bit premature to condemn or defend at this point.

brant, not trying to attack you or single you out (or indeed anyone), but i reached a boiling point of frustration when i read, yet again, someone defending questionable antics with the "they are in business to make money" band-aid.

i actually had a friend defend goldman-sachs by using that exact phrase when there was a front-page USA today story about insider trading accusations recently.

perhaps bank robbers are next.

they're just doing it to make money, right?

sorry for the rage.

c

[Brant Hadfield]

Chris,

I think you'd better re-read my post. I am in no way defending corporate behavior of skirting obligations to warranty claims. I am telling it like it is. I find the behavior reprehensible, but most companies I have dealt with do everything they can to avoid honoring their written warranties. I put forth the cold, hard reasons: 1. Money. 2. Difficulty the customer would have in fighting the denial of coverage. The co pany holds all the cards, and the merchandise. What leverage do you have as a customer? I have read several complaints on this site where it appears Red has charged customers for work which appear to have been covered repairs. And I have not seen Red offer a rebutal, but rather a request to take the conversation private. I have seen similar behavior from auto manufacturers. They find ways of denying coverage because they CAN. Not because they SHOULD. I am pointing out the difference.

this is getting slightly off topic but i am SICK TO DEATH of hearing this "business is about making money" adage thrown around. i hear no shortage of apologists touting this in defence of various entities; everything from monolithic institutions like verizon or exxon to even smaller, more focused companies like RED.

of COURSE it's in a business' best interests to make money, but it is absolutely NOT the be-all end-all determining characteristic of success. it seems that as of late people are readily accepting of (if not, indeed, championing) the idea that money is the sole reason for anything's existence, ever.

there ARE indeed people and businesses alike who aspire to something greater than "the bottom line". RED seems to be one of these. they've got a damn profitable situation on their hands, but ever since getting involved in the furor about RED early on and first coveting the R1, i've felt that RED was one of those companies that actually had passion about something other than money.

now of course it would be brilliantly irresponsible to run a business on passion alone - something i'm learning in my own entrepreneurial pursuits - but that doesn't preclude the possibility of finding a balance.

so to excuse a company for allegedly offering bogus warranties as a 'marketing tool' because "hey... they're in business to make money" is abhorrent and unacceptable.

OF COURSE they're in business to make their customers happy. outside of the odd S&M castle in san francisco, most businesses don't last very long if they're abusing their customers. providing an excellent, exciting product and living up to your promises is AS MUCH (more so, in my opinion) a recipe for success as cutting corners and lying. although i'm feeling ever more in the minority on that viewpoint.

i'm not making a judgement one way or the other on the OP's situation or otherwise. what i've read in the thread is a little surprising, but as we don't know all the details, it seems a bit premature to condemn or defend at this point.

brant, not trying to attack you or single you out (or indeed anyone), but i reached a boiling point of frustration when i read, yet again, someone defending questionable antics with the "they are in business to make money" band-aid.

i actually had a friend defend goldman-sachs by using that exact phrase when there was a front-page USA today story about insider trading accusations recently.

perhaps bank robbers are next.

they're just doing it to make money, right?

sorry for the rage.

c

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's important to remember that Red is a business, and like many businesses, warranties are used generally as a marketing tool. Unless someone is willing to go to the trouble of challenging Red in small claims (which would almost certainly be successful for the customer if the information he's provided in this thread is accurate), Red will do what they need to do to maintain their bottom line. They are not in business to make you happy. They are in business to make money. If they can find a way out of paying a warranty claim, or simply ignore their own terms and suffer no consequences they will. Human nature, and "business nature".

If you take RED to small claims court you can guarantee they'll never sell you another camera. :P Lose Lose.

[Robino_J]

If you take RED to small claims court you can guarantee they'll never sell you another camera. :P Lose Lose.

Have your mom buy it for you :)

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Yeah the warranty seems a bit limited in value.

The RED Scarlet-X Manual states that "Power conditioning circuits provide protection against reverse-polarity connection, ESD, under voltage, and over current."

And yet when my AC accidentally reversed polarity, it turns out the "protection circuit" actually only protects you from having to replace all the electronics in the body, and any of those power conditions still blow out the power circuit which is a $1600 repair not covered by warranty that will put the camera out of commission for a week.

I'm in the same boat. My sidehandle broke just from being used and they're charging me $510 while the thing is still in warranty. First the screen stopped working, then all the buttons stopped working electronically, then the door wouldn't shut...and while its covered under production insurance for that shoot, its ridiculous that it has to be paid. I had a Canon lens brake just from use and they sent me a new one, they didn't charge me half the price just to get the old one fixed, while it was still in warranty.

[Rob Ruffo]

It's important to remember that Red is a business, and like many businesses, warranties are used generally as a marketing tool. Unless someone is willing to go to the trouble of challenging Red in small claims (which would almost certainly be successful for the customer if the information he's provided in this thread is accurate), Red will do what they need to do to maintain their bottom line. They are not in business to make you happy. They are in business to make money. If they can find a way out of paying a warranty claim, or simply ignore their own terms and suffer no consequences they will. Human nature, and "business nature".

Customer loyalty is how you make money. You make money, in fact, by making people happy. This is an unusual story. Most Red service stories are very positive

[Brant Hadfield]

There are numerous posts on this website about warranty coverage issues with Red. One included an account of a power problem which Red's service department acknowledged had nothing to do with a third party battery, yet later, coverage was denied due to use of a third party battery. Anecdotal comments, both yours and mine. But I've read a number of posts regarding coverage problems which leads me to believe Red's interpretation of their warranty is anything but liberal.

Customer loyalty is how you make money. You make money, in fact, by making people happy. This is an unusual story. Most Red service stories are very positive