CousinsUK vs Swatch group, praiseworthy.

[Endeavor]

I didn't spot this news until now;

https://www.cousinsuk.com/page/news

[tomh207]

This thread gives a bit of the background, started in 2015!

 

Tom

[Neverenoughwatches]

1 hour ago, tomh207 said:

This thread gives a bit of the background, started in 2015!

 

Tom

I understand Cousins involvement and they themselves are heavily affected by the parts restrictions and a complete withdrawal. But i just cant help thinking though after recent discussions in the forum regarding cousins attitudes towards customers that they are just as money oriented and uncaring as Swatch. 

[eccentric59]

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

that they are just as money oriented and uncaring as Swatch. 

 

I don't think that they necessarily are inseparable. Of course they are money oriented as are most companies and people who work for a living. While it's not completely mercenary for most, money is the compensation for work. I'm not saying Cousin's is the Mother Theresa of suppliers either, but deliberately irritating your customers is not a good business model and definitely affects the bottom line.

That said, I do think there is a huge difference between a company selling something for a profit and one company telling another they are not allowed to -- and they do everything possible to prevent it.

[Neverenoughwatches]

2 minutes ago, eccentric59 said:

 

I don't think that they necessarily are inseparable. Of course they are money oriented as are most companies and people who work for a living. While it's not completely mercenary for most, money is the compensation for work. I'm not saying Cousin's is the Mother Theresa of suppliers either, but deliberately irritating your customers is not a good business model and definitely affects the bottom line.

That said, I do think there is a huge difference between a company selling something for a profit and one company telling another they are not allowed to -- and they do everything possible to prevent it.

All companies are money oriented, they have to be otherwise why be in business, i am.  But i look after my customers, its paramount to me that they are happy. If they weren't then i would be affected by that in time. I can't say I've had a problem with cousins but then I've only had a couple of bulk orders with them. I know some are quite unhappy with cousins, what i was trying to say if you are going preach law and ethics to a company then really you should have your own company to top order.

[Endeavor]

Amazon sell a lot of products and regardless how happy the majority of the costumers are with that product, there are always some "one"-stars.

One can look at the happy crowd and make up you mind, or you can purely focus on the "one"-stars.

It doesn't matter what Cousins incentives are, the fact that they stand up and are willing to spend all that time & money to fight the Swatch-group is in my opinion highly praiseworthy.

I'm concentrating on the good, which, IMHO, outweighs the "one"-stars by miles.

[Neverenoughwatches]

17 minutes ago, Endeavor said:

Amazon sell a lot of products and regardless how happy the majority of the costumers are with that product, there are always some "one"-stars.

One can look at the happy crowd and make up you mind, or you can purely focus on the "one"-stars.

It doesn't matter what Cousins incentives are, the fact that they stand up and are willing to spend all that time & money to fight the Swatch-group is in my opinion highly praiseworthy.

I'm concentrating on the good, which, IMHO, outweighs the "one"-stars by miles.

yes i understand what you're saying and I'm not knocking them per se, good on them.  But you understand they are doing this to keep their company afloat right. Just saying, "fight evil but keep your own evil at bay as well"  hypocrisy is not a nice trait.

6 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

yes i understand what you're saying and I'm not knocking them per se, good on them.  But you understand they are doing this to keep their company afloat right. Just saying, "fight evil but keep your own evil at bay as well"  hypocrisy is not a nice trait.

What i dont get is cousins apparent policy that was discussed the other day. If you are not an actual business of watch repair then basically any warranty, comeback on delivery issues etc will be ignored. To me if you sell something regardless of who it is to then you cover it till its received and you guarantee it for a set period of time depending what it is. If you dont want retail customers then you vet them and you drop them when you find out they are not a business. So to me their policy is a massive responsibility getout clause. So " hello Cousins drop the bullshit because without all your 10s of 1000s of hobbyists purchases, your problems with Swatch would be just a drop in the ocean "  stick that in your pipe and smoke it Antony Cousins.  Rant over lol.

Edited January 3 by Neverenoughwatches

[Endeavor]

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

regardless how happy the majority of the costumers are with that product, there are always some "one"-stars.

So be it

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

15 minutes ago, Endeavor said:

So be it

 

Lol thats not a one star matey. I can rant much harder and longer . I accept your take on the swatch/cousins lawsuit , my take is lt to look after and respect all of your customers, big or small. I strongly suspect the bulk of cousins income comes from the amateur community. 

[eccentric59]

6 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

If you are not an actual business of watch repair then basically any warranty, comeback on delivery issues etc will be ignored.

I have no doubt that Cousins written policy is to be a primarily B2B company and that does leave potential risk for the hobbyist/independent buyer, but the proof is not the paper but how they implement it. I've never had a need to return or place a claim with them, but my orders rarely top $100. I have place one order over $300, but no issue with the product or service.

 

IF Cousins does in both policy and practice fail to account for errors or damage that is not the customer's fault, then by all means, hand them the hypocrite badge of dishonor. I would point out, even if it were true, Cousins will only lose customers since they do have some competition. The Swatch group (and many modern corporations) is restricting access to parts to force customers to use their services which most assuredly will be more expensive than a local or independent watchmaker. Moreover, customers will be at their mercy for what Swatch deems necessary. 

 

Let's look at a pretty close analogy. If you drop an iPhone and send it back to Apple to replace the screen, they will not only replace the whole assembly, rather than just the glass, they will most likely wipe the phone back to factory spec's. If you choose to not have Apple make the repair they will charge you for the evaluation and the shipping. An independent repair shop will have a next to impossible time getting the parts and it certainly won't be from Apple.

If I take a vintage Seamaster to an AD with a broken crystal and they send it back to Swatch, they may require a full service with replacement of anything they claim is damaged. And, they may refuse to replace the crystal only. However that crystal that they maintain replacement stock is not available to dealers to sell to independents to do the repair that I wanted.

As to the subject of unhappy customers, I agree with Endeavor that there will always be people who can't be pleased. Those folks also tend to be the most vocal about their dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, for a business to have a good review, more times than not they will have to provide exceptional service above and beyond what most would simply consider good. 

[Neverenoughwatches]

12 minutes ago, eccentric59 said:

I have no doubt that Cousins written policy is to be a primarily B2B company and that does leave potential risk for the hobbyist/independent buyer, but the proof is not the paper but how they implement it. I've never had a need to return or place a claim with them, but my orders rarely top $100. I have place one order over $300, but no issue with the product or service.

 

IF Cousins does in both policy and practice fail to account for errors or damage that is not the customer's fault, then by all means, hand them the hypocrite badge of dishonor. I would point out, even if it were true, Cousins will only lose customers since they do have some competition. The Swatch group (and many modern corporations) is restricting access to parts to force customers to use their services which most assuredly will be more expensive than a local or independent watchmaker. Moreover, customers will be at their mercy for what Swatch deems necessary. 

 

Let's look at a pretty close analogy. If you drop an iPhone and send it back to Apple to replace the screen, they will not only replace the whole assembly, rather than just the glass, they will most likely wipe the phone back to factory spec's. If you choose to not have Apple make the repair they will charge you for the evaluation and the shipping. An independent repair shop will have a next to impossible time getting the parts and it certainly won't be from Apple.

If I take a vintage Seamaster to an AD with a broken crystal and they send it back to Swatch, they may require a full service with replacement of anything they claim is damaged. And, they may refuse to replace the crystal only. However that crystal that they maintain replacement stock is not available to dealers to sell to independents to do the repair that I wanted.

As to the subject of unhappy customers, I agree with Endeavor that there will always be people who can't be pleased. Those folks also tend to be the most vocal about their dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, for a business to have a good review, more times than not they will have to provide exceptional service above and beyond what most would simply consider good. 

I hope you are right that their written policy is rarely implemented. Why they have it in any form at all if thats the case ? As pointed out in the other discussion regarding cousins, legally unlikely they can pass the buck to a manufacturer or a courier more like delay of a resolution or just a general fobbing off tactic, still not a pleasant experience for a well paying customer with a genuine issue. Always somebody that is not a happy customer moreover lifting the leg of a supplier, I tend to look first at negative reviews and feedback, weeding out the ones that are obviously after a freebie. For now I'm happy to buy from cousins but that doesn't stop me listening to someone with a different view and a different story. Good debate though.

[JohnR725]

21 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

But i just cant help thinking though after recent discussions in the forum regarding cousins attitudes towards customers that they are just as money oriented and uncaring as Swatch. 

One of the unfortunate realities of running a business is you do have to make money. If you have employees you have expenses people expect to get paid so that would mean cousins has to make money.

 

10 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

hope you are right that their written policy is rarely implemented. Why they have it in any form at all if thats the case ? As pointed out in the other discussion regarding cousins, legally unlikely they can pass the buck to a manufacturer or a courier more like delay of a resolution or just a general fobbing off tactic, still not a pleasant experience for a well paying customer with a genuine issue. Always somebody that is not a happy customer moreover lifting the leg of a supplier, I tend to look first at negative reviews and feedback, weeding out the ones that are obviously after a freebie

Then the discussion is interesting because there seems to be a caution about the policy and then there was a discussion about how many people were affected by the policy and you are obviously keeping score how many people suffered from the policy versus how many people were happy with cousins?

 

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

30 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

One of the unfortunate realities of running a business is you do have to make money. If you have employees you have expenses people expect to get paid so that would mean cousins has to make money.

You do have to be money oriented john thats part and parcel of running a business, i am and have to be to a point. But i did say as money oriented as Swatch, i was suggesting greed over customer respect. I would hope cousins are not like that, unfortunately i have a mostly cynical view of the world, experience can do that to you.

40 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

One of the unfortunate realities of running a business is you do have to make money. If you have employees you have expenses people expect to get paid so that would mean cousins has to make money.

 

Then the discussion is interesting because there seems to be a caution about the policy and then there was a discussion about how many people were affected by the policy and you are obviously keeping score how many people suffered from the policy versus how many people were happy with cousins?

 

 

Haha i become preemptive John at the first sign of danger.

[VWatchie]

I've never had a problem with Cousins, and I take my modest business to them as often as possible. I've had a couple of incidents but they were well taken care of. A bad idea as a hobbyist/independent buyer would be to demand cousins refund you. I've never done that. Instead, I have provided pictures, a concise and humble description of my predicament, and asked (rather than demanded) for help, and each time they came to my rescue without being obliged to do so. You never know, but so far I have only praise for Cousins.

[Neverenoughwatches]

9 minutes ago, VWatchie said:

I've never had a problem with Cousins, and I take my modest business to them as often as possible. I've had a couple of incidents but they were well taken care of. A bad idea as a hobbyist/independent buyer would be to demand cousins refund you. I've never done that. Instead, I have provided pictures, a concise and humble description of my predicament, and asked (rather than demanded) for help, and each time they came to my rescue without being obliged to do so. You never know, but so far I have only praise for Cousins.

Thats good to know watchie. I have had the same experience with ebay. I spend a lot of money there and out of the half a dozen times I've had an unresolvable  issue with a seller, respectful  discussions with ebay help staff they have always landed on my side.

[Stuart2]

I use cousins alot, and yes i have had a couple of issues (you get this with most companys) but they have always replied promptly and have sorted things out quickly and efficiently. 

[eccentric59]

6 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

But i did say as money oriented as Swatch, i was suggesting greed over customer respect.

Replace "Swatch" with any public corporation, and "customer respect" with shareholder confidence and you've got the formula for the situation we all seem to be in at this point in time. Unfortunately to most corporations the customer is simply someone who is standing between them and their profits. In the policy decision making processes of most corporations, consideration is given in the following descending order: The company, the shareholders, the law, and finally the customer.

Think of it this way. What does Swatch get out of it by restricting parts and information? People will still be buying their brands because style, luxury and status tend to outweigh irritation and inconvenience. Moreover, when one of their products is in need of service, the customer has fewer options and faces the choice of expensive repair or replacement, either of which add to Swatch's bottom line keeping the company and shareholders happy. Whether the customers are happy or not is less relevant.

What would Cousin's make/save by not facing accountability for a problem? They might save the cost of replacement of the sale and the cost of service, but that's a one-time 'benefit' with the potential loss of future business. While it might not prevent people from buying from them, it would tend to shift their hierarchy of sources so that Cousins might become that last choice rather than the first.

 

So back to the idea of Cousins is being hypocritical for suing Swatch but having a customer unfriendly policy in their TOS. Swatch policy can be explained by greed, but Cousins would be of little benefit.

[Neverenoughwatches]

28 minutes ago, eccentric59 said:

Replace "Swatch" with any public corporation, and "customer respect" with shareholder confidence and you've got the formula for the situation we all seem to be in at this point in time. Unfortunately to most corporations the customer is simply someone who is standing between them and their profits. In the policy decision making processes of most corporations, consideration is given in the following descending order: The company, the shareholders, the law, and finally the customer.

Think of it this way. What does Swatch get out of it by restricting parts and information? People will still be buying their brands because style, luxury and status tend to outweigh irritation and inconvenience. Moreover, when one of their products is in need of service, the customer has fewer options and faces the choice of expensive repair or replacement, either of which add to Swatch's bottom line keeping the company and shareholders happy. Whether the customers are happy or not is less relevant.

What would Cousin's make/save by not facing accountability for a problem? They might save the cost of replacement of the sale and the cost of service, but that's a one-time 'benefit' with the potential loss of future business. While it might not prevent people from buying from them, it would tend to shift their hierarchy of sources so that Cousins might become that last choice rather than the first.

 

So back to the idea of Cousins is being hypocritical for suing Swatch but having a customer unfriendly policy in their TOS. Swatch policy can be explained by greed, but Cousins would be of little benefit.

Thats the explanation i was hoping for, a few upset customers is not going to outweigh hundreds of happy customers as long as it stays that way .   No company cannot afford to have too many of the few, but affluent companies tend to get too big for their boots when business is booming, peeing off a few irritating customers can mean nothing at all.

 

[Waggy]

It's strange how things happen, an old professor just a few weeks ago asked if I wanted to co-author a paper on the differences in North American and European business practices, and reading over some of the comments above it is easy to spot the differences - maybe this topic/forum is fertile ground for some research? I wrote my DBA thesis on inter and intra company conflict and cooperation so seeing the cooperation and conflict between a watch part manufacturer (Swatch) and a watch part supplier (CousinsUK) and their customers (us) is home ground for me. When looking at the discussion on this topic and from my personal experience and observation it seems like the average USA person in business has a more binary attitude to business, ie the main driver is to make money, and other aspects such as CSR (corporate social responsibility) does not have as great a priority. However, European (and Canadian) businesses assign a greater emphasis on these other aspects often sacrificing profit which they may assign to 'the cost of doing business'. Just to be clear, I'm just pointing out a difference in culture, not making a judgement on which is best (whatever best means) so that the discussion above can be viewed with a different lens by someone from from a European business centric culture looking at the comments of someone from a USA business centric culture and vice versa.

The customer-supplier relationship is at its core a confrontational relationship as each actor has polar opposite drivers, in very simplistic terms the supplier wants to charge as much as they can and not leak any profit, and the customer wants things as cheap as possible with as much free or cheap added value as possible (quality, free delivery, after service etc...). Therefore, both sides have to compromise and meet somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes - and when you compromise you can never be 100.00% happy. From my initial research it seems like the USA business and customers are more skewed to the side of the business over the customer drivers ie the business should make money, but the European is more towards the other side of the spectrum where the customer drivers carry more significance, its also important to remember that the middle of the spectrum is not necessarily the right place to be. One can see this in practice when a USA business moves to Europe and they change their drivers in Europe to cater to the different culture and vice versa, for example Chase bank charge a monthly fee for a checking account in the USA, but do not in Europe. Having lived in the USA I can see that customer service in retail outlets is amazing, but one could argue this is is a mechanism to attract the customer to generate profit and not a philanthropic act such as reducing profit margins on organic food to encourage healthy eating.

I'll stop there as I think I'm starting to write the paper! I just wanted to point out that the differing cultures of the users of this forum mean that your interpretation of a good business practice may be alien to someone from a different cultural norm.

In the case of CousinsUK, people vote with their feet, the customer will always choose the best value option (be that price point or some other intangible value eg customer service etc). If that perceived value reduces, people will change to another supplier which offers greater value to them. Then CousinsUK has to decide if they are happy where they are, or change back to the old model to regain the business - sometimes it has to hurt to learn.

Edited January 5 by Waggy

[VWatchie]

I don't know if it is true, but someone once told me that the founders of McDonald's (American!) had said: "Take care of the customer and the business will take care of itself". It really rang true in my ears and I've been applying it ever since (even before that). For me, customer satisfaction has always been my number one priority, and when negotiating my price I've always tried to see it from the customer's point of view too. The reason customer satisfaction is my number one priority, rather than trying to maximise my profit, is that it gives me a feeling of contributing to a friendlier and happier world and that in turn makes me feel better about myself. I would of course never ever hurt myself to create customer satisfaction, but I never hurt or deceive a customer for profit.

The above would of course make the "American culture of business" laugh their asses off.

Edited January 5 by VWatchie

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 minutes ago, VWatchie said:

I don't know if it is true, but someone once told me that the founders of McDonald's (American!) had said: "Take care of the customer and the business will take care of itself". It really rang true in my ears and I've been applying it ever since (even before that). For me, customer satisfaction has always been my number one priority, and when negotiating my price I've always tried to see it from the customer's point of view too. The reason customer satisfaction is my number one priority, rather than trying to maximise my profit, is that it gives me a feeling of contributing to a friendlier and happier world, and that in turn makes me feel better about myself.

The above would of course make the "American culture of business" laugh their asses off.

Well said watchie, thats been my policy for the last 35 years in business, it thrills me to see smiles and hear praise when i finish a job. You can supply a cheap product or service with mostly a poor aftersales ethic at volume and still make a lot of money, because most folk look at the cheap deal first ( get the product/service to me quick and cheap and I'll take the risk, complain and send it back if I'm  not happy with it ) .But for how long ? For as long as it takes to build a bad reputation and lose enough customers to become financially unviable. If you do that at the start of your business you dont last very long, if you build a good reputation first and then downgrade your standards over time because you got complacent, too greedy or just dont care because you've made your money then it can take a while for the word to get around that you are now crap. That could easily be a change of company ownership or management, or just a residual fact of coping with competition. Indirectly or even directly customer requirements can cause that to happen, a # if you want it cheap ? We'll give you cheap because your not having the same product for less money # attitude from the provider, who can blame them shifting labour costs to a cheaper workforce and material costs to a lesser quality. There are two kinds of people, those that buy cheap because they dont understand quality or dont care and those that buy expensive and put their trust in something well made or well provided. And then all the ones inbetween that constantly shift from bad to good or go middle ground. Would China and India be the mass suppliers they are now if in the 70s folk weren't enticed by having more of what they had for less money, increasing their income's buying power. Our generation and the one before us caused that. But anyway yes, Take care of your customer and the business will take care of itself , never a truer quote.