SVS Trade-Up Policy - There is a "Catch"

[HexOmega]

Recently I contacted SVS customer service by phone to inquire about the "Trade-Up" policy advertised on their website as item #6 in their so-called "Bill of Rights":

PROMISE #6...
1-YEAR TRADE-UP POLICY
You may trade in any product purchased from SVS within 1 year of your
purchase, and receive full credit toward the purchase of a more expensive
like product. We ask that the product be in like new condition with original box and packing. We ask our customers to pay any freight charges associated with
the return and new purchase.

Well, as it turns out the policy is only valid for purchases made since they started advertising this program, which I believe the representative said was on or about November 29, 2011. I had originally intended to inquire about trading in my two SB12-NSDs towards one of the new SB13-PLUS models, but although mine were purchased within the last year, they did not qualify because both were purchased prior to the commencement of this program.

So, for those of you who have considered trading in your recently purchased SVS subwoofer, please keep the above in mind.

This is not intended as a jab at SVS, because I do feel they make great products, but I definitely DO feel as though the above should be posted (at a minimum) as fine print below their "Bill of Rights."

 

[jonnythan]

I personally don't see any issue here. If there was no trade-up program when I bought something, and they introduced one a few months later, I wouldn't expect it to retroactively apply to me.

When you buy something, you accept the terms that it's bought under. If the company offers something new later on, it won't apply to previous customers unless explicitly stated.

 

[GlocksRock]

That's not really a big deal, I don't think you will have any problems selling your current subs if you want to upgrade in the future.

 

[Nuance AH]

That's not really a big deal, I don't think you will have any problems selling your current subs if you want to upgrade in the future.

^ This. SVS subs sell fast on the used market, primarily because they are great performers for the money. I am sorry you didn't get grand fathered into the trade-up policy, but I don't think you'll have an issue selling them on audiogon.

 

[lsiberian]

No harm in asking for a deal of some kind.

 

[GlocksRock]

Plus as a repeat customer, you will qualify for 5% off.

 

[Rubicon_Joey]

The big catch for me is having to pay the return and new shipping cost. Seems like this violates promise #4. However, I assume they have to make their money somehow in this deal. I wouldn't expect them to pay return shipping but, I would think the new shipping cost would be reasonable to ask for. Depending on what you originally purchased, shipping cost could cost you more than it's even worth. Seems like selling your current subs and buying new is the best option.

 

[theJman]

This is not intended as a jab at SVS, because I do feel they make great products, but I definitely DO feel as though the above should be posted (at a minimum) as fine print below their "Bill of Rights."

Agreed. Any time there's a caveat to a program it should be fully disclosed, otherwise the impression is one of impropriety. While the upgrade policy is a great one any/all restrictions should be noted.

 

[jonnythan]

It's not a caveat. The terms that were on the site when you made the purchase are the ones that apply to you.

Any terms that show up afterward don't apply to previous purchases.

That's how it is and how it always has been, everywhere. The contract you have is the one you agreed to.

 

[lsiberian]

The big catch for me is having to pay the return and new shipping cost. Seems like this violates promise #4. However, I assume they have to make their money somehow in this deal. I wouldn't expect them to pay return shipping but, I would think the new shipping cost would be reasonable to ask for. Depending on what you originally purchased, shipping cost could cost you more than it's even worth. Seems like selling your current subs and buying new is the best option.

You gotta stay in business somehow.

 

[Crackerballer]

Pm me, let me know how much you want shipped for one of the SB12-NSD to NC.

 

[HexOmega]

Wow, tough crowd.

Guys, I really don't think I'm terribly out of line with this observation.

Its not like there was a "contract" when I bought the subs stating that there wasn't a trade in policy.

I logged on their website one day to find the bill of rights accompanied by a fairly extensive site redesign (a huge improvement by the way). The vast majority of the policies set forth in the bill of rights were in place when I bought both of my subs. I figured that I may have overlooked the trade-up policy in the past.

You folks that posted stating that my exclusion from this policy should have been obvious:

If the dealership where you bought a new car, the nearby HiFi store where you bought your high-end tower speakers, or the Apple online store where you bought your iPad began advertising a one-year trade-up policy on the goods sold there, without any obvious exclusion related to date/time of purchase, would you not at least call to see if you are eligible?

Would you not feel even minimally slighted to be found ineligible for a policy that has no advertised duration, especially when the product you purchased was received mere weeks prior to the seemingly arbitrary commencement of said policy?

All I'm saying is this: if they want to cut off previous customers as a matter of policy, that is perfectly acceptable, BUT there should be fine print or something to indicate that intention. To do anything else is borderline misleading.

 

[jcl]

To me "any product purchased from SVS" is not the same as 'any product purchased from SVS after 11/29/2011'.

I would think SVS would want to specify the fine print to protect their brand image (which is pretty stellar I think) and cut down on the unnecessary inquiries.

As already stated it matters little to the svs owners as resale value is pretty high (as are the shipping costs for the trade in).

Just my 2 cents

 

[theJman]

Any terms that show up afterward don't apply to previous purchases.

Which is precisely what they should be saying; these terms and conditions only apply to products bought after xx/xx date, or something to the affect. That's only stating the policy in a clear, concise manner. There's never an excuse for doing otherwise. At least I've never considered there to be one.

 

[jonnythan]

Which is precisely what they should be saying; these terms and conditions only apply to products bought after xx/xx date, or something to the affect. That's only stating the policy in a clear, concise manner. There's never an excuse for doing otherwise. At least I've never considered there to be one.

I obviously disagree pretty strongly. So does the law, actually. I think there's no room for confusion here.

The stated terms at the time of purchase are the terms that apply to your purchase. Period. If SVS, today, put a banner on their website "all subwoofer purchases come with a free cable" the OP wouldn't be calling them up and asking where his cable was. That's because the offer applies to new purchases.

Similarly, if SVS put up a banner that said "all sales are final; no returns or exchanges" that also would not apply to previous purchases. Everyone who bought prior to that message's appearance would be 100% entitled to the return and exchange terms that were stated at the time of purchase.

The only time such an offer retroactively applies to purchases made before the offer was made is when they explicitly say so. And they don't.

 

[its phillip]

I don't understand why you have a problem with them putting a date stating when the new policy became effective. The ONLY thing it would do is make things more clear.

 

[jonnythan]

I don't understand why you have a problem with them putting a date stating when the new policy became effective. The ONLY thing it would do is make things more clear.

I have no problem whatsoever with them putting a date stating when the policy became effective.

My problem is with people who are upset or disappointed that a new policy implemented after they made their purchase was not retroactively applied to an old purchase.

 

[theJman]

I have no problem whatsoever with them putting a date stating when the policy became effective.

My problem is with people who are upset or disappointed that a new policy implemented after they made their purchase was not retroactively applied to an old purchase.

Since that's all I've been advocating why are you arguing with me then? I never once mentioned that SVS should do anything retroactive, only that they don't hide what the policy truly includes. Even my original reply, which you quoted, is pretty concise in that regard.

 

[jonnythan]

Since that's all I've been advocating why are you arguing with me then? I never once mentioned that SVS should do anything retroactive, only that they don't hide what the policy truly includes. Even my original reply, which you quoted, is pretty concise in that regard.

You said "There's never an excuse for doing otherwise." That's something I disagree with, so I responded to it.

 

[lsiberian]

I have no problem whatsoever with them putting a date stating when the policy became effective.

My problem is with people who are upset or disappointed that a new policy implemented after they made their purchase was not retroactively applied to an old purchase.

I see no issue with being disappointed we all want great deals, but being upset is silly. You have one of the best brand of subs out there.