Carl,
I order via phone and only when speaking to a real person. They can tell
you the handling part of the charge. I am not complaining about being
charged the actual shipping costs - the vendor has no control over what
UPS/Fedex, etc. charges.
I am talking about the vendor added "handling" charge. And yes, they DO
know what that is ahead of time the same way they DO know what the item
charge is. They already know their markup on each item, their overhead,
etc. They certainly know the handling charge too.
Just like they add up the advertised cost of the items to figure out the
"parts" charge, they can do the same thing with "handling" charges. That IS
within their knowledge and control and thy CAN post that next to their
price, or better still, include it in their price.
> Most systems on the web cannot calculate the handling charge until the
> entire order is placed, unless it's a fixed charge per item. If the
charge
> is based on weight, size, etc., it can not be calculated until the order
is
> complete. I host a few web sites and I have tested at least 20 different
> shopping cart systems, and this is how they function. If they
recalculated
> the charge after every item you bought, then the complaint would be that
it
> was too slow and the question would be: "Why doesn't it just calculate the
S
> & H at then end? I know I have to pay it, so why waste my time."
>
> Furthermore, if it's UPS, or USPS, there's no mystery since they have
> published rates on their respective web sites.
Agreed - but the actual shipping costs are not what I was talking about - I
am talking about the "extra" that gets added to the the actual shipping
costs.
> Any consumer that has ordered anything over the web, by catalogue, or by
> phone is aware of S & H ! If they are not, they are not paying attention.
> Consumer beware and aware is not just a slogan.
Shipping yes, handling NO! unless it is disclosed. Some companies charge
actual shipping costs, some charge actual shipping PLUS, and some charge
actual shipping PLUS and THEN add a handling component ALSO! So what does
"S & H" mean? It doesn't tell us anything useful by itself. In short, it
doesn't tell us IN ADVANCE, whether XYZ Radio will charge us $13 of $27 or
$41!
> As for disclosure, I always see some note that says "Plus S & H". While
it
> may make for a point of discussion on a reflector, the truth of the matter
> is that every ham that has ever ordered anything for delivery is aware if
> there will be an S&H charge, how much it will be, and the effect to TOTAL
> price.
NO! We DON'T know what it will be unless and until it is disclosed.
> The same Hams (me included) that moan and groan about paying too much for
> shipping are the very same ones that would be up in arms if the price was
> higher because the shipping costs where included. We can't have it BOTH
> WAYS!
What do you mean both ways? If the item cost $1 and the S & H is $11 or the
item is $1 and the S & H is $11, THE COST IS IDENTICAL! THE PRICE IS THE
SAME $12!
> My approach is like this:
> If it's a MAJOR item like a Radio, Tower, etc., where shipping can get
> costly when coupled with the insurance, I shop for the best TOTAL PRICE..
> That is, price + taxes + plus S&H + insurance.
Of course, but why have to waste time "ordering" each item to get the
complete price, instead of ALL the VENDOR charges as well as prices being
prominently displayed?
The vendor already knows what the item charge, the "handling" charge, and
the sales tax is - so put it out there for all of us to see BEFORE we
actually order!
The answer is that not doing this results from some combination of laziness,
lack of responsibility, game-playing, indifference and in some cases -
outright dishonesty.
> As a CONSUMER, there's one true POWER that I have. I do NOT HAVE TO BUY
> FROM a VENDOR!
Unfortunately this is NOT always true. Many manufacturers will only sell
their proprietary parts though a specific vendor, thereby creating a
monopoly or quasi-monopoly.
When enough people don't buy from a vendor, the vendor gets
> the message and either adjusts or goes belly up. Ham vendors know that we
> have one of the STRONGEST WORD OF MOUTH networks around.... it's
WORLDWIDE!
> They also know that we will use this for or against them according to the
> individual case.
That is one of the greatest values of this reflector - so we can share this
information amongst ourselves for the benefit of all.
In closing, please remember:
DISCLOSURE - good for us and good for ethical vendors
NON-DISCLOSURE (and or gouging) - BAD for us, good for unscrupulous vendors
BTW, as an example of what I mean by disclosure and good business practice,
whenever I ordered anything from Stan, W7NI, he always itemized everything
and only charged actual shipping charges.
There was NO nickel and diming, NO handling charge, etc. Sure he didn't
have the overhead that other companies have, but that would simply have
given him room to charge even more than he did and still be the lowest cost
around by far.
But he DID NOT do that either. Stan actually charged less than he could have
because he wanted to help us out too - not just make maximum profit. VERY
COOL!
Stan if you did sell your business, it is all our loss. I just hope that
the person you sold it to cares as much as you did. A big THANK YOU for all
your help and for being a great example of a fair-minded business owner who
was also open and honest about everything!
73
Bob KQ2M
> 73
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@mags.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Towertalk] Buying nuts and bolts - Rationalized gouging
>
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > > The out-the-door cost to ship an empty "free" box, when we did a cost
> > > analysis at Ameritron in the 80's, was over $4 in direct overhead
> > > cost not including postage or shipping fees.
> > >
> > > I'm amazed we complain about any vendor trying to cover those costs,
> > > and just break even.
> >
> > Several reasons we complain:
> >
> > 1) The price of the item is always advertised prominently but the
> "handling"
> > charge IS NOT!
> > If the merchant was as proud of their handling charge as they were of
> their
> > product and price, they would ADVERTISE the handling charge just as
> > prominently.
> >
> > The excuse that "My competitiors don't do it so I don't want to be at a
> > compeititve disadvantage" is a lame rationalization for the
> non-disclosure.
> >
> > The truth is that people that charge handling charges generally don't
want
> > it known until the order is placed because they KNOW that few people
will
> > cancel their orders at that point. Even better (for the vendor) is when
> the
> > salesperson never discloses the actual handling charges and simply lumps
> it
> > together with shipping on the bill and the first time that the unwary
> > purchaser sees it is they get their charge card statement - at which
point
> > they are not going to go through the expense and hassle of returning it!
> >
> > Yes, the purchaser SHOULD ask for the amount of the handling charge, but
> > more importantly, they shouldn't have to ask for it, it should be
> disclosed
> > and advertised prominently in advance.
> >
> > 2) The customer service in many companies absolutely stinks from order
> > processing to shipping to billing, etc! So now we the customer are
being
> > hit with a "surcharge" for inefficiency, lousy attitude and
non-disclosure
> > on the part of the company and its employees. This would make almost
> anyone
> > angry.
> >
> > I would much rather face exorbitant part prices (which we already
face) -
> > which ARE obvious up front and make a decision on that basis, rather
than
> > play this guessing game of handling charge non-disclosure, which, to me,
> is
> > dishonest and sleazy. Even if it were disclosed, IMO, a separate
handling
> > chanrge is still gouging - but we don't need to revisit that thread.
> >
> > As far as overhead goes, every business has it. It's part of the cost
of
> > doing business.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Bob KQ2M
> >
> > > As for the price of parts? Anyone who sells anything to the
> > > government is not allowed to sell the part for less to anyone else,
> > > as was pointed out by others.
> > >
> > > I can buy an equivalent part from Motorola NOT sold to the military
> > > for about $15 less than a similar part that is sold to the military.
> > > 73, Tom W8JI
> > > W8JI@contesting.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Towertalk mailing list
> > > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Towertalk mailing list
> > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
|