Got my $11 ATH-M50 s today
Nov 2, 2010 at 5:52 PM Post #91 of 140
I don't see what some people are getting so worked up about in this topic.
If a company advertises a product at an unlikely low price, it's not wrong for a potential customer to purchase it.
Of course, if you're an especially nice person, you could give them a call and notify them quickly about it to make sure it's not a pricing mistake on their part.
Up to this part I don't see any problems with it, the nasty part appears if the company would announce that it was a pricing mistake, apologizes for the error and cancels any orders, and after that people would try to strong arm the company into fulfilling the order anyway through various threats such as getting the law involved or alluding to the potentially loss of reputation.
But no one has done this kind of thing as far as I know (but the company in question didn't cancel any orders, so that's why), so I don't see why some of you seem to have a personal beef with this.
Although reading from how the company is responding to this pricing error, I don't really feel much "sympathy" for them.

A) asking people to send them back
B) already paid for shipping to the customer
C) have to pay return shipping now
D) sell the returned item at a lower price because it's an open box item
With all these factors, the actual profit must be extremely low, especially considering the fact that this is a relatively inexpensive item, I would understand if they did this on a $500+ item or something, but like this it doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
Might as well mark it off as a small loss and let the customer keep it and be happy.
People might consider the shop then for future purchases, since they had a good experience there, rather than the company recalling something after a mistake on their part.
But hey, what do I know, I don't work there.

OT: why is this new text editor so horrible?
Most of the time I can't even see the text cursor and it's not possible to make paragraphs, can't copy/paste anything etc.
Seriously, is this a problem with Firefox or is it just horrible in general?
Nov 2, 2010 at 5:53 PM Post #92 of 140
I'd be great if you guys could A/B test your new M50s and put to rest the questions raised by the Headfonia article about differences in production batches... oh well.
Nov 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM Post #93 of 140
I make no judgement on anyone here, as a persons "values" are a personal thing, the sum of our cultural being.  Some are saying because it was a mistake peolpe should not take advantage.
Almost everytime I go to the supermarket the prices scanned on at least one item (often many more than one) are wrong, not the same as those advertised on the shelf.  Sometimes these errors/mistakes cost me money and sometimes I save because the error is in my favour (mostly it is in the sellers favour as specials have not been marked down correctly).  These mistakes are often not picked up until you get everything home and unpack and check items off against the receipt.  Now in order to get things fixed you need to go back to the store.  Would you go back to the store to point out that they undercharged you for an item?  Retailers have a responsibility to get their pricing right, and if they can't then what other aspects of their business do they treat with contempt: Occupational Health and Safety maybe? 
People are often quick to judge, despite not having all the facts.
How was the mistake made?  If it was a mistake, then what was the original intent?  What price should the retailer sell the product for, and who should determine this? Why was the product shipped, instead of the orders being cancelled?
Retail is about offering product for a price in competition with other retailers.  There is a contract of sale (listed/published price) and an acceptance of that contract (purchase).  There are laws that enable that contract to be cancelled given specific situations (dependant on the origin of the sale) and if that doesn't occur at what point of time should either party remain obligated that the contract was not "fair"? 
Values can be funny things and not always black and white.  Don't impose your values on every one else is my opinion.
Nov 2, 2010 at 5:59 PM Post #94 of 140
Are they contacting every one who bought a pair to return them? Or did they only contact those that contacted them first about if it was a price error and what they should do now that they have the product?
Nov 2, 2010 at 6:02 PM Post #95 of 140
I have not been contacted by Amazon or 17th Street, so I guess it's up to the purchaser to contact them.
Nov 2, 2010 at 6:04 PM Post #96 of 140
Are they contacting every one who bought a pair to return them? Or did they only contact those that contacted them first about if it was a price error and what they should do now that they have the product?

Nope. It's completely voluntary.
Nov 2, 2010 at 6:23 PM Post #97 of 140
Nov 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM Post #99 of 140

I have not been contacted by Amazon or 17th Street, so I guess it's up to the purchaser to contact them.

That's fine then. If they went out and contacted all the buyers that probably would not reflect well on their part. I don't see them getting that many returns. It's nice of those to return it however.
Nov 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM Post #100 of 140
Gratz on the grab guys.  No one should feel guilty about purchasing something that was being sold legally.  Enjoy them!
Nov 3, 2010 at 4:27 PM Post #102 of 140

 Apparently they consider it theft


Not quite. They just want the headphones back. Not like anybody would return them... Now I'm glad I never bought one.
Nov 3, 2010 at 5:03 PM Post #104 of 140
why did he say "in reference to theft" then?  What a weird thing to say.  So he's trying to passively suggest that you're stealing?  That's really not cool IMO.  Either they should have kept the phones, or if not at least email everyone asking them to return them if possible.  Or if not, then just leave it be.  You can't ship them out and then try to guilt trip a customer into doing the right thing. 
Does anyone know if Amazon covered the mistake?  People were saying before that they would. 
Nov 3, 2010 at 5:03 PM Post #105 of 140

I didn't mention "theft" or anything like it.
That was entirely his choice of words.

You mentioned the word theft...

Users who are viewing this thread