OT good grief

[grant_.]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[kelly_flanigan1]

<h3>At what percentage of worth offering for the equipment would the "moral issue" be gone?</h3><BR><BR>It is unhealthy for a business to NOT buy items at low prices.<BR><BR>Our business requires a minimum 50% markup on selling price on used items; because of the repair risk; serial number searches; and cleaning required to resale the items over a year.<BR><BR>This profit pays for the huge overhead a small business has. The huge medical; liability; and auto insurance; plus a zillion taxes; yellow page adverts; rent; direct labeor costs; etc must be paid with hard cash. We have no government pipeline/nipple keeping us afloat. When a machine dies; we fix; mend it; instead of buying new. <BR><BR>Most people that abhor a decent profit have never run a business; and have a low risk government job shielded from the reality of being in a recession. A decent Profit is like having good health. This profit pays the monthly wage of those on the dole; soldiers in Iraq; the postal worker; city mayor; fireman; policeman; old pensioners from past wars; etc. The current USA business climate is hostile; businesses are moving abroard to escape the "anti profit" noose of insurance and taxes; and high labor costs. It is strange that some government workers abhor businesses profits; that inturn pay their secure wages. <BR><BR>Without a profit; the business will pay no income taxes. Thus the states here dig into the tobacco trust funds; and use the "help the old folks who smoked" money; to pay for roads; travel; school football programs etc; With small businesses profits being a bust; the states are eyeing the internet; to tax all sales. The recent US government economic census form of 2003 is targeted to give the states more fuel to tax all mailorder and internet sales. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Here all the state and local governments focus on "tax holidays" to bring in new business; this tends to screw existing business; who have to still pay high income and property taxes. The politicians are heros; for bringing in new businesses; this helps them get reelected. The business closings; due to lack of profits; is not studied much here. Threatening to move ones entire labor force overseas seems to get their attention; sometimes they even give a slight "tax holliday"; to not pull the labor plug.

[bobtodrick]

Kelly...so let me get this right. 'at least 50% markup on used equipment' is what your stores policy is? So you'd have offered the lady $125.00 and sold it for $187.50 (hell you wanted to make some cash so you put it out at $250.00). I highly doubt it. I agree with some of the stuff that's been said...hopefully Mark uses this as a learning experience. I've been in the same position and it isn't that hard to quietly pull a co-worker aside and politely let them know that they're being unfair (I'm going to assume the co-worker didn't really know by how much he was ripping this person off). This works pretty well every time because most people (the co-worker) aren't downright dishonest.

[travis1]

Think of it this way, the lady practically sold only one of the LTM lenses and gave the M5, IIIG and the other 2 lenses for free.

 

but i digress.

[tim_noble]

I've known some little old silver haired ladies who were crooks. Maybe the stuff was hot.

[chip l.]

Bob,

 

Let me repost this from above in case you missed it:

 

"But lets look at the "deal". A bargain M5 is about $900, the IIIg same condition about $800, and the lenses about $200 each. For a total of $2300. Based on Mark's description the M5 repair might be $400, about $300 for the IIIg, and about $100 each on the lenses - for about $1000 in repairs. Depending on the condition of the gear it may not even be repairable. Most repairs carry only a 90 or 180 warranty from the day it is received back at the store. And most dealers offer a 90 to 180 day warranty themselves. So if the gear lingers on a dealers shelf AFTER the repair warranty, then the dealer pays the new repair cost. That could be $200 to $300 for each body. Lets say for discussion that the dealer then factors a $200 for future repairs for each of the bodies. That leaves a profit of $900 on the total kit. That works out to about 39% profit if they get the full $2300 for everything. That may seem like a lot; but consider that camera dealers try to get 25% to 40% margins (depends on the dealer and the type of gear) on used gear."

[bobtodrick]

Hey Chip you're assuming a helluva lot here. I'm also going to assume that Mark would never have posted (or 'watched in disbelief' for that matter) if the stuff was in poor shape and the lady was getting fair value. Ya know...every once in a while you actually can stand up and call a spade a spade.

[tom_duffy1]

I think some people are being much too harsh on Mark. He was obviously disturbed by the incident, so his heart's in the right place. He ought to feel out his boss and see what the company thinks about this kind of behavior. If the boss is a stand up guy he'll make right with the other salesman, if not, Mark will have to decide if he can work for such a company, or not. Very few people can react instantaneously in a situation like this the first it happens. the problem is conflicting loyalties (to the store, coworkers, old lady, self). If you're upset enough about it, and Mark was, he'll know what to do next time. A very important life lesson.

[chip l.]

Bob,

 

I would hope your comment, "so let me get this right. 'at least 50% markup on used equipment' is what your stores policy is? So you'd have offered the lady $125.00 and sold it for $187.50", was a joke. If not you really have no idea of the cost of doing business in the retail sector - in particular when it comes to the risks of dealing used gear.

 

Mark wrote, " I DO think she was taken advantage of...granted the equipment was far from mint and the M5 had mold on the fungus, it was worth alot more than $125"

 

The key "assumptions" are "far from mint" AND "the M5 had mold". Also fogging is an issue (as well as cleaning scratches) for the lenses.

 

This is not assuming a lot. It is the reality of a camera shop that deals in used gear. Unless a seller is willing to wait for a estimate of value AFTER a repair technician looks at it, that is another story all together. Many shops do not have techs that can take apart a camera to get a detailed look inside at the time of an appraisal.

 

It may be a shame that the M5 may have lowered the overall value of the kit. You are right Mark did not comment on all of the kits condition. He might not have looked at it all closely. But the reality is that the M5's condition indicated that the rest of the kit was suspect.

 

Just as with a car; if you have a car that needs work and you go to trade it in - then the value you get back on is less. If you spend the money to have the car presented in its best possible condition - then you will get more for it. Same with cameras.

 

The key in this discussion is that the M5 had mold and fungus. That indicates poor storage and lack of use. I would think that even you would agree that it would be fair to assume that the IIIg and lenses were stored the same way.

 

The only assumptions that I feel that I may be way off on is in the cost of repairs. I did not have a repair guide handy when doing the reply. I was working off of my memory as to what repairs cost, and also based on the very brief description by Mark.

 

Everyone is focused on the $125 that the customer got. May question for you Bob (and for anyone else)is, what (given what you know of the general condition) would you have given her for the trade? [i think everyones answer should be entertaining]

[bobtodrick]

Okay Chip...here goes...and I am the industrial manager for a large retail outlet that deals in used every single day. We would expect to retail the units @ M5-$1500, IIIg - $1000 and $200 each for the lenses. A total of $3100.00. This is for cameras that could be put on the shelf at good , but not excellent shape. For this we would give the customer $2325.00, LESS the cost of CLA's, our cost of which for these pieces would total $725.00...leaving the customer a total of 1600.00. Bear in mind I'm talking Canadian funds here, conversion to U.S. dollars leaves $1106.00, a far, far cry from the $125.00 given. As I've said this would be for good, not great gear, with each piece given a CLA. Whether the fungus was too far gone is, under the circumstance something I can't comment on, the fellow who sold the gear (unless a repair expert who took the camera apart on the spot) wouldn't be able to ascertain, no can you. Why do you find it so hard to realize that often 'the deal of the century' means someone got ripped off. If you can live with that thought, someone please remind me never to buy anything from you.

[james_.1]

Chip you're a wanker/fondler.

[chip l.]

Too others, sorry for the long post�.

 

 

Bob,

 

It seems that (once conversions are done for US$ vs. CN$) that the anticipated resale value is about the same - $2300 (mine) vs. $2135 (yours). And if we were looking at just a standard CLA, you probably are right there also. The final profit margin if there were no further repairs were needed beyond the CLA's would be 25% for your firm. Within the 25% to 40% that I stated in the previous post. In the dealers I know of in the US the margin is probably higher in the 30% to 50% range.

 

It appears to me that your firm is willing to take a greater risk - such as the repairs costing more, and the equipment requiring potential repairs AFTER the expiration of the CLA warranty if the gear does not sell right away. These are business decisions that each firm makes on its own. Such factors as - how quickly will repairs be done, how quickly will such product be sold, will there be future warranty repairs that might not be covered by the CLA warranty play a factor in the offer made to a customer as you well know.

 

You are also right that neither you nor I have seen the actual equipment. The key in my valuations was the term "fungus". I took the worse case scenario, you took the best case. The point of my posts was not to defend a low ball figure to an "old lady". It was to provide some thought as to why the money that was offered, was offered; to provide a business model that would give some thought to responses here.

 

You did lose me with your comment, "Why do you find it so hard to realize that often 'the deal of the century' means someone got ripped off. If you can live with that thought, someone please remind me never to buy anything from you". Maybe it's been a long day for me. But the comment "that often 'the deal of the century' someone got ripped off" means either the customer or the merchant gets "ripped off" (though I never had used that phrase to my knowledge) means to me that either the customer or the merchants gets ripped off. In a pure business sense it is up to the company to determine acceptable risk. Your comapny has determined yours. My company probably falls somewhere in the middle. I will say that based on the limited information that I personally (NOT representing my company) under such circumstances offered somewhere between $500 and the $1100 you spoke of. All of it dependent on the inspection of the gear and what my reasonable expectations of repairs; and expected turn rate of the gear.

 

If we are talking of our companies we have a responsibility to protect that company�s interests. If we are talking about dealing as individuals; then it up to our morals. In the sense of the company that may not jive with our personal morals. Given our respective companies, I don't think that we are far apart.

 

In fact I resent the comment "someone please remind me never to buy anything from you". Just because I gave a "rationalization" of what was offered in this case does not mean that I condone what was done. Not knowing the individual that made the offer, I cannot say that he was trying to "rip" anyone off. Nor can I say that he was looking out for the customer�s best interests, though it appears not. You and I do not have all the information available. But for you to make a comment like that when I was trying to show a PONTENTIAL other side of the coin is misguided. Never did I say that my company or I subscribed to such methods or overall math. I took the time to look at the possible "rational" behind it, trying to justify the price that was paid, so the lynching would stop; trying to look at a business model that might support such an offer.

 

My previous posts were meant to provide another view of the "bashing" (my term) that Mark and his associate were being subjected to without looking at a business model to support the money offered. Many of the respondents here probably don't have the experience that you or I have (though the overall risk willing to be assumed are different between you and I). And that was the vein that I approached my previous posts. It was only after a challenge that you decided to respond. Then with a personal attack was unwarranted. Maybe I did not make myself clear on my intentions of the post. But your misrepresentation of Kelly�s post and your follow-up to mine does question your motives.

 

Keep in mind we are talking about our experiences in valuing gear. You took one road, I took a more conservative one for illustration purposes only. NEVER did I say that my company or I use such business models. I took Mark�s comments further. It is heartening that your company does work on smaller margins, and thereby assuming greater risks. But remember that not all shops are able to do so. But to attack an individual for making broad comments not associated to his current employer, but rather his experience and conversations in the industry ranks up there with the �bashing� that Mark and his fellow associate have received.

 

[chip l.]

I wish you would gain a better vocabulary there James, need to broaden your horizons there mate.....

 

Guess it takes one to know one....

[gib]

I guess we will never know whether the silver haired lady was a crook as someone suggested in this thread, doing a little Spring cleaning, or was selling some old possessions of her husband because she was hard up for money.

 

I guess those three possibilities would suggest 3 different business models that she might have been employing.

 

Discussing this with someone off line, another angle came up, one that I am not familiar with. Namely, do camera stores offer an estimation of value service for a fee. Along the line of walking in and saying here is $50, tell me what I have, how bad is its condition, how much to repair, how much roughly would that net me.

[chip l.]

William,

 

You have a good point there (though I am sure it will start a war again). I personally took it as an woman that wanted to trade her deceased husbands gear. As such we did not have all the info to make an informed opinion.

 

Discussing this with someone off line, another angle came up, one that I am not familiar with. Namely, do camera stores offer an estimation of value service for a fee. Along the line of walking in and saying here is $50, tell me what I have, how bad is its condition, how much to repair, how much roughly would that net me.

 

You raise another good question. I know from my experience that when a customer comes in with gear like this we give a free estimate of what we would give them with the information at hand. That our estimate is based on the current condition, and that the value is based on that condition. If the condition is questionable (like in this case in this post) we would indicate that there may be more to the repairs than normal. And that as such it reflects what it is worth for us. Leaving to the customer whether they want to sell or not. I personally indicate that if one is not happy with the value that they can sometimes get more selling on their own (and have done battle with my managers when I thought the value low).

 

One point not discussed here is that a dealer "generally" will not under value gear on the chance that it may come back to haunt them (as in this case). Cameras stores today have to build a relationship with each customer, regardless of the situation. If not they risk not being there tomorrow.

 

On the other hand shops will not without a fee is indicate what the item will sell for in the open market. At least in the US, trying to give such a value could open one to litigation for not meeting expected value. With the ability for people to see what value gear has to purchasers on *bay, there is no reason for camera stores to get in to that. Everyone seems to have the feeling (off a few bad apples) that dealers are "out" against the customers. Not the case with the shops I have worked with.

 

Even the situation that Mark relayed, none of us (even dare say Mark) have the true indication of what the gear is worth. Unless Mark comes back and says that his manger reviewed the transaction and feels that the value is higher; we have to assume that there may be other factors as to condition that warrants the money received.

[raymond_tai]

Chip, A lot of words to justify taking an old lady to the cleaners. I hope you are

only playing devil's advocate.

[chip l.]

Yes I am Ray, only since so many are wanting to lynch both Mark and his associate without looking at all the possible details.

 

Funny some here are will to get into details about this and that about specific gear. Yet when the human element is involved thy want to rely on pure emotion.

 

I am beginning to feel that Mark's only sin was sharing his feelings. So many were wanting to cast stones without really looking at the situation. I truly wonder how people would have responded if Mark had left out "old lady".

 

In particular the lack of indignation in teh garage sale therad indicates that peoples feelings were driven by the "old lady" reference.

 

I guess just one example of we hear what we want to hear. If you need further examples jsut look at any US newspaper.

[james_.1]

Chip...poor Chip I hope you find a way to distill situations down to their essences better in the future. It will save you a lot of time and effort.

[chip l.]

Maybe like you James? I guess we are the same then... like your first post to me...

[james_.1]

You know I'm not an adversary, what's wrong with a little debate? I'm not being mean about it. I just throw some things out there from time to time.