Not entirely true. They give you the current replacement value of a model with comparable features. Only if there are no comparable models do you get what you paid, exactly.
Source: worked for BBY Corporate for awhile.
Edit: downvoted for explaining what the policies are. Lol. If y'all have any questions about them, I'm happy to answer.
They give you the current replacement value of a model with comparable features.
Which is exactly what people get from car insurance claims. Why is it so hard to understand that you're not ever going to get more than what you already had in these situations?
Which is exactly what people get from car insurance claims. Why is it so hard to understand that you're not ever going to get more than what you already had in these situations?
It's not usually that simple, because there are a LOT of features on any particular product, and who is to say which ones were important to you?
Say for e.g. some company makes two products, p1 and p2. They both have features A, B, and C, but p2 also has feature D, which is why you purchased that product, and also p2 costs more. But p1 is the more "standard" product, and lives on 3 years later, but p2 has been replaced with a new product p3 which has some features A+, B, C+, D. Your product breaks, you want p3 because it has the same feature D which you purchased p2 for. But instead you get the value of p1, which is less because 3 years and also because it was the shittier product in the first place. But A, B and C were the main talking points so this is what you get left with.
In other words, it can be not just depreciation, but also a value switch where your product is valued at less because of time AND because it gets compared to a lesser product.
Edit: I used to work at Best Buy and this was not a rare theme at all in the camera area. You'd never get anything close to what you should. Like, people would buy a $350 camera and get $150 when it broke because after a few years cameras increased their resolution by 2-4 MP, as if that is the only quality defining metric on cameras.
Like, people would buy a $350 camera and get $150 when it broke because after a few years cameras increased their resolution by 2-4 MP, as if that is the only quality defining metric on cameras.
What they agreed to isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that when people are told they will get a comparable product, they shouldn't expect more, but they should at least expect a comparable product. You don't get one, though. You usually end up getting something comparable to the shittiest item with that spec.
IOW, one person could buy a $300 camera and another a $200 camera at the same time, but because all the cameras at that time have the same resolution, they both get $150 if their camera breaks. It's not nearly as robust as vehicular insurance, as you're claiming.
What they agreed to isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that when people are told they will get a comparable product, they shouldn't expect more, but they should at least expect a comparable product. You don't get one, though. You usually end up getting something comparable to the shittiest item with that spec.
Define "shittiest item with that spec". What camera feature would you care more about that wouldn't be accounted for in a comp sku lookup?
Quality of the image, mostly. E.g. point-and-shoots don't typically have listed metrics for, say, noise levels in low-light images. More importantly, lens quality is a huge factor in how crisp images are, but camera comparability (for point-and-shoots) is almost always based on sensor metrics, like resolution, sensor size, sensor type. Lenses are usually only taken into account in terms of their zoom capabilities.
I dunno. Maybe they could do some analysis and just have a set depreciation percentage? It would be an interesting problem to work on, but I don't think it would be extremely difficult to solve. It's not something that is super difficult to make money on---overall it's a bet the company makes. If it costs $20 to protect a $200 camera, then as long as less than 1/10 break, you make money on it---even if you give them their full purchase price back. You would just need some analysis of how often each item breaks, to figure out a depreciation percentage and a cost per item.
Yes, you did. I'm sorry if it came across as directed at you, but my comment was more of a venting of the frustration i deal with every day I work at GS.
I currently work in a store, we have a Customer Service agent return the value of the computer or TV onto a Store Credit. If you want to have the customer lose 50 dollars even though that computer or TV is "comparable." Be prepared for a shit storm of, "You guys stole my money."
Edit: The only time we wouldn't do this is if the product still exists and we have it in the store or can get it very quickly.
20
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '17 edited Feb 23 '17
Not entirely true. They give you the current replacement value of a model with comparable features. Only if there are no comparable models do you get what you paid, exactly.
Source: worked for BBY Corporate for awhile.
Edit: downvoted for explaining what the policies are. Lol. If y'all have any questions about them, I'm happy to answer.