Re: Koni info (in defense of Koni)

[MHLIGGINS@aol.com]

      This is the e-mail that Audial is responding to in his second post.  I
originally didn't send it to the list.  Didn't know this would develop into a
long thread.  Based on the comments from the list, looks like my
disappointment is shared by others.  Thanks for the support.

--ml
Disappointed in Bucksnort.

<<Subj:	Re: Koni info (in defense of Koni)
Date:	98-02-24 23:41:05 EST
From:	MHLIGGINS
To:	Audial

<<But I have to ask: do you save the receipts for those things that you know
are
expensive and somewhat "unnecessary"?  Of course you do.  The previous owner
should have also.>>


     Your point is understood, but you should understand that I DO have the
original receipt.  And the original car.  And the original shocks that are
leaking oil.  Cuts no ice with Koni.  That's my point.  The hidden glitch,
which no one finds out until after they have the shocks (if they even catch it
then), is the "original purchaser only" clause, even the guy I got the car
from missed that part.  And from the conversation today, it seems they neglect
to tell people about the current registration and original sales receipt -
they find out when they try to get the shocks repaired or replaced.
     My disappointment is that they present the "lifetime guarantee" in their
ads without making it clear that it will be very difficult to get anything
done.  It is presented the same way as other companies present theirs, thus it
is misleading.  The "lifetime guarantee" is shown to be something that should
add value to the product, when in fact it only adds value to the marketing of
the shocks.
     The marketing strategy for many companies is to sell "sizzle", not
steaks.  You can get a steak anywhere.  So they market the ambiance, the
classiness of the locale, etc.  The VALUE of the product, not just the
product.  This is what Koni is doing, which is proper marketing.  The problem
is that the impression they are giving does not match the reality of what they
will do.  It would be like a Bonanza trying to present their ambiance as being
the same as Ruth's Chris.  Both are chains, both sell steaks (and stuff), both
have chairs, both have lights, etc.  But Bonanza shouldn't present itself as
being comparable to Ruth's Chris.  It's not reasonable marketing.
     Koni makes the lifetime guarantee a high profile part of their
presentation.  (Quality is not in dispute here.)  It is presented in a way
that leads people to believe that they are offering the same service as Snap-
On.  (And some Snap-On tools are significantly more expensive than the Koni
shocks.)  But they aren't doing that.
     When I talked to Wes earlier today, as he was telling me what Koni would
do in response to the lifetime guarantee, he said "Now, this is where most
people really lose it..."  Then he proceeded to tell me about the
registration, and if they had that, they'd ask for the ORIGINAL sales receipt.
So, from the testimony of one of their people, I'm not the only one who felt
misled.
     As we closed the conversation I made the statement that the guarantee had
much more marketing value for the customer than actual value for the customer.
He had no "come back" for the statement.
     Another thing he mentioned was that the registration had to be for the
current year.  In other words, I'd have problems getting a replacement shock
on some of my cars because they are garage queens.  If I let one sit up and
the shock seals deteriorate, I'm out of luck because I don't register the car
every year.  (I have two that I haven't had a license plate on yet, but I've
paid for lots of parts.)
     All in all, I am disappointed.  I like the shocks, just don't like paying
for them several times.  If I'm going to have to buy new shocks every two
years, I may find better value in those who don't charge the high prices for
service they are trying hard to avoid providing.

     --ml>>