Re: Noblex Warranty

[Ellis Vener <evphoto@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>Here is my take on this warranty flap:  Remember we are talking about
>cameras needing repair, this means "broke."  This story may be fiction
>but which part?
>
>.2.  Noblex wants to make sales (ergo profit).  So, to meet a quota, they
>deeply discount a batch of cameras to an independent buyer who then
>sells them on the cheap (and makes a profit). Noblex was thereby able to
>keep its production line going and its employees working.  This discount
>buyer sold them for less than the "Authorized price" thus the
>"Authorized dealer" who, by the way, was probably making a killing, was
>cut out. This started with Noblex, not the risk taker who helped Noblex
>unload its production stock.  One might also observe that if the
>"Authorized dealer" had been selling enough cameras, there wouldn't have
>been cameras around to discount.
>
>3.  Next, in order to cover those discounted cameras, Noblex says to the
>world, sotto voce, "we wish to keep our dealers happy so we will not
>warranty any cameras we sell discounted, only cameras sold through our
>over priced authorized dealers and only in the country where they were
>sold just in case some one might move."
>
>4.  Supporting as few cameras as possible adds to their bottom line
>number. Noblex lives only by selling, hopefully, high and spending
>hopefully, low.  It's basic business.
>
>5.  Since Noblex has created and stirred this pot, what does a camera
>user do about it?  Simple, do business with a company whose ethics match
>yours.
>

Mr. Lindsay,

After reading your scenario I think three possibilities present 
themselves. 1.) You have a very vivid imagination. 2.) Are naive. Or 
3.) Do you speak from personal experience, and is this the way you 
run your business? If the latter is the case (and I do not believe it 
is) even God won't help you when you get caught. If your scenario is 
true, God won't help Noblex either. I don't think the third scenario 
is the case because an unethical person wouldn't post such a notice 
so I come to the conclusion that either possibility 1 or 2 must be 
true.

What you are proposing is that Noblex pursues a practice that is 
actively suicidal.

A more likely scenario is this, given the limited number of serial #s 
supplied on the initial e-mail from Noblex:

1.) A dealer or distributor for a region contracted with Noblex to 
purchase a certain number of units. After receiving them the 
distributor or dealer decides to or needs to dump the excess 
inventory on the market in another part of the world to strengthen 
cash flow.

It is also possible that a stolen shipment of Noblex products  and 
now circulates through the "black market".

Do you think either is a far fetched scenario? Both happen in the 
retail world all the time.

E-commerce being what it is, Noblex and their distributors face the 
very real possibility that those  products will windup in other parts 
of the world.  Noblex and its distributors in those regions will then 
have to absorb the cost of any repairs that may be necessary. These 
costs that may (even though the possibility is slight, given the 
small number of goods) endanger the fiscal health of the company and 
somehow will be passed on to customers in the form of higher prices 
or the factory closing the doors.

To me it seems that Noblex DID the ethical thing by alerting its 
legitimate distributors and users not to buy these products from 
these questionable sources.


Has the IAPP developed a position on this matter?

I have no connection with Noblex or its distributors.

Ellis Vener