Odd (but typical) that Nikon would do this.

<p>Good going, Shun. But it should not have taken someone (you) with inside connections to get this response. It should have been handled this way when Rick reported it. And on a one time basis, they should have given Rick the sixth year; that would have showed some class.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>P.S. Brooks, I am afraid that you need to forget about that law suit. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, drat, some poor "deserving" lawyer will not get his/her new yacht. <BIG GRIN></p>

<p>As far as I can tell, Rick's lens is not older than 5 years but newer than 6 years so that it would have caused a dispute. Any Nikon USA lens sold in the last whatever number of years (at least 16 since the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S I bought new back in 1999 had the 1+4 extended warranty) have the additional 4 years of extended warranty, and that is clearly marked on the box and on the warranty card/slip.</p>

<p>Rick was simply unhappy about an error (or typo or ambiguity) on one particular Nikon USA web page. Any one of us could have contacted Nikon's customer service, and they acted pretty quickly, within 24 hours. I think everybody agrees that the original wording was wrong or at least ambiguous. Clearly that supervisor Chuck who responded to me agrees.</p>

<p>Oh well, another class-action lawsuit against Nikon goes down the drain.</p>

<p>Just so you know. I registered the lens online. I did not pay much attention to the paperwork. I read that and assumed it was correct so I delayed sending the lens in. I DID call Nikon customer service and they DID NOT fix the error even after I told the representative about the error. </p>

<p>I do not believe for a moment that they would be responsive unless pushed. And that is the whole point. Isn't it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly that supervisor Chuck who responded to me agrees.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good work Shun, to get Nikon's website updated. Too bad they did not respond to Rick, but it is at least good the language is made clearer. I see the correction as evidence Nikon just made a mistake (versus some kind of intentional wrong-doing). I think the lesson here is to be careful when it comes to warranty terms (or rebates, etc.). I have been burned a few times after making <em>reasonable</em> assumptions - it sucks, but I have found most companies are pretty inflexible when it comes to the fine print. Even given the website error, I doubt Nikon would be willing to provide warranty service for lenses in the 5-6 year range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see the correction as evidence Nikon just made a mistake</p>

<p> Even given the website error, I doubt Nikon would be willing to provide warranty service for lenses in the 5-6 year range.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...and there lies the crux of this issue. The second statement makes the first an untruth to an honourable company.</p>

<p>calling customers service really has nothing to do with inside connections.<br /> just pick up the phone and do it.</p>

<p>i am not affected by this misleading warranty information (i honestly always thought it was 1 year...whatever) but a big THANK YOU is in order.</p>

<p>shun, that was handled very cool of you, thumbs up.</p>

<p>as everything went the way it was supposed to, even rick must be happy now.<br /> so am i.</p>

<p>good job, shun.</p>

<p>Thanks Norbert for your kind words.</p>

<p>I have been a moderator on photo.net since like 1998, 1999 or so. Therefore, it has been over a decade and half. What I learn over the years is that it is human nature to complain. However, I myself much prefer to get things done and to make this world a tiny bit better. Clearly my capability is limited, but I'll be glad to make whatever minute improvement I can.</p>

<p>Photo.net has ties with Nikon USA's public relations company, the MWW Group. MWW handles the product launches, test sample loans, etc. They prefer me to report issues to them, but they are not part of Nikon. I used to be in touch also with David Dentry, who was a manager in Nikon USA customer relations. David would have corrected this type of issues quickly as he did before. However, he left Nikon last year and became VP at another company so that I no longer have a contact there. Eventually I ended up sending an e-mail to Nikon Customer Service as any one of us could have done, and I am glad that Chuck from Nikon responded within 24 hours.</p>

<p>I am glad this is resolved. I will bow out of this one but not without saying this:</p>

<p>Remember from the start that I informed Nikon Customer Service of the mistake and they simply blew me off. Their answer, "sorry about that". I pressed the issue with the rep and said he should report it and, IIR, he did not say he would.</p>

<p>On my last run-in with Nikon I did all and more than you did on this. I spoke to two supervisors and called the Nikon USA headquarters myself encountering apathetic people all of the way. I got nowhere. </p>

<p>It is nice that you all want to let Nikon off of the hook but because I trusted their website I am still out who knows how much because I delayed sending this lens in for service. How many more people out there think they have a 6 year warranty because they read what we all read? </p>

<p>You said this Shun:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rick was simply unhappy about an error (or typo or ambiguity) on one particular Nikon USA web page. Any one of us could have contacted Nikon's customer service, and they acted pretty quickly, within 24 hours. I think everybody agrees that the original wording was wrong or at least ambiguous. Clearly that supervisor Chuck who responded to me agrees.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So even you were quick to blow me off as just unhappy about a typo. That is not true and how you could have divined that from my posts, I don't know. Nikon did NOT "act quickly within 24 hours" . You forget that I notified them and they did not ACT at all. But that is my fault because I did not spend the time to get a supervisor on the phone. </p>

<p>Now lets set the record straight shall we. You told us you sent an email on the <strong>4th</strong> and copied us here with what you wrote.<br>

Then on the 8th you posted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Incidentally, I have not received any replay from Nikon. Last week was WPPI and my contacts were probably busy. And that web site in question has not been updated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the 11th YOU wrote: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'll make a second attempt to alert them about this confusion on Nikon's web site. But I am not going to keep bringing it up or they may think I am insane. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the 12th you told us that you made a THIRD attempt, this time by phone and you got some supervisor to act. So it WAS NOT 24 hours it was 8 days and three contacts. If you had relied on your initial email and my phone call you and I both know this would still not be fixed. </p>

<p>So then you congratulate Nikon for getting a serious customer service problem, and likely case of deceptive advertising corrected in over 10 days after two people make a total of <em>at least</em> two phone calls and sent <em>at least</em> two emails. And one of these people surely must be considered a Nikon insider. You may want to reconsider your 24 hour time frame. </p>

<p>I took a lot of abuse in this thread. It will be my last for a long time if not forever. If this is not a forum in which we can talk about the bad as well as panting after the latest fancy lens cap then it does a disservice to all who read it expecting, at the very least, candor. </p>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the 12th you told us that you made a THIRD attempt, this time by phone and you got some supervisor to act. So it WAS NOT 24 hours it was 8 days and three contacts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rick, I would appreciate that you don't make things up out of thin air. Totally I contacted Nikon twice on this matter and never made any phone calls. I wonder where you got the idea of some third attempt, in all capital letters no less.</p>

<p>The first time I sent e-mail to Nikokn's PR firm the MWW Group, which is our contact to Nikon USA, and I got no response. Yesterday, the editor from photo.net inquired about not getting responses from other unrelated e-mail, and the MWW Group told us that some of our e-mail were directed to the junk folder. Whether it was the same reason that they didn't respond to my e-mail is unclear. So the second time on March 11 I entered an e-mail inquiry on Nikon USA's web site as anyone of us could have done, and this supervisor Chuck (who I didn't know before) responded the following morning with their web site already clarified.</p>

<p>Nikon USA's 1+4 year warranty on lenses is well known and clearly specified on their warranty card when we purchase new lenses. Therefore, this entire thread is about one ambiguity on one particular Nikon USA web page, out of who knows how many web pages Nikon's various web sites have. To say the least, it is making a mountain out of a molehill.</p>

<p>Rick the OP has indicated to me that he won't post to this thread any more. Since the ambiguity is now resolved by Nikon, I am going to close this thread.</p>

<p>For the record, I have not deleted anything from this thread, such that its entire history is preserved for people to review.</p>