ARC: something puzzles me about return policy

I noticed that ARC no longer replaces lights with cosmetic blemishes. This puzzles me. Are the blemishes so common that ARC cannot afford to replace the light. It would seem that if blemishes are extremely rare, then ARC would probably be willing to do exchanges. So that must mean blemishes are not rare, in which case I'm hesitant to spend premium prices on a dinged up light.

Raven

IIRC--It seemed like there were situations where someone would return many times to get a perfect light, in their opinion. Arc was eating the shipping out so it was expensive. Most people are/were happy with the lights they got but a few found fault too many times and Peter decided he had to eliminate that option. My guess and the feelings of others is that if there was a light that had serious aesthetic issues Peter would exchange it, once.
Anodizing is an imperfect technology and it is not unusual for there to be some minor flaws or color differences, Peter is selling tools not fashion statements.

Generally, I won't care as long as it can't be easily noticed with the naked eye.

Raven

blemishes are rare, but the good supply of overly-fussy individuals necessitated the new policy for the reasons wit's end stated /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Raven is as right as too rabbits. ARC must be getting an inordinate amount of complaints about the condition of their shipped lights. It is about time that somebody "slapped ARC on the hand" for it's "new and improved" (for ARC) warranty. First of all, it is inevitable that any light that is packed in a "ziplock sandwich bag", and is thrown into a bin or bins of many other similarly wrapped lights, will be dinged, banged, dented, and/or chipped. Hard anodization only goes so far in protecting the device. Although my first ARC light (LSH-S) was received in good shape on Tuesday, the packaging used is "inadequate" for the price we pay for a light, and in comparison to the packaging of other lighting products that command a fraction of the cost of an ARC.

If ARC insists on cutting overhead costs by packaging their highly engineered lights in this manner, then they have no right to change warranty policy when they are getting many complains about a light that is seen to have visual defects even before one can lay their hands on it.

I suggest that ARC package their products in a more "appropriate" manner, not only for shipping, but for storage in the many locations used before it is put in a bubble jiffy bag for shipping. Plastic baggies are for sandwiches, and not for expensive lighting devices.

Now to the "owners instruction sheet" included in the shipment........ Either your "copy machine operator" needs more training on how to make a neat and legible copy, or your machine is on the blink. My sheet had overlaps of text, because whomever copied it didn't check to see if it was legible before it was thrown in the bubble bag with the light. The page was also copied crooked. Who knows if there was a mass copy operation done, and if all copies look like this.

In conclusion, the ARC packaging and documentation, should be commensurate in quality to the lights. For all of the people at ARC who see this post, please take this stern message as constructive criticism, and as a representation of the sentiments of your many loyal customers who have remained silent about this matter for too long...........

the issues regarding the cosmetics and packaging of the light have been covered extensively in previous threads. as always everyone is free to vote with his or her wallet /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

You're right. There's a huge thread on this topic, which I'm sure covers all the points. Thanks.

Raven

I would agree that they could be shipped in something better than a padded envelope, and you do have a point if the lights are banged together seperated only by a bag that they can get dinged up.

perhaps a little bubble wrap around the light might the solution /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sir,

I believe that ARC should "listen to the people." We should not be voting with our wallets. If we did as you have suggested, the people at ARC would be without a business, and we would be without their products. Let us vote with our good mannered words instead. I am sure that you have heard "the pen is mightier than the sword?" Doesn't this apply here?

Would you please refer me to the thread dealing with this issue. Obviously, ARC has not been listening to "the voice of the people!"

Take care,
Jeff

I hate the packaging of most lights. Those awful blister packs are really annoying, and any aesthetic benefit they offer only lasts until I can get the darn thing off. I like that the Arc AAA packs aren't sealed shut so you can at least open it easily. I don't see what the big deal is with the plastic bags. If it was being sold in Walmart it would be one thing, but it's being sold mainly online. You get all the information you need online before you buy it. It kind of reminds me of buying computer parts online; quite often you get it in a white box with little or no information but that's just fine--I know what I ordered or I wouldn't have ordered it. If I want pretty packaging that talks down to me, I'll go to Staples or somewhere like that and pay a lot more.

As has been pointed out, there is plenty of discussion about the new return policy. Personally, I don't see a problem with that either. I don't want to subsidize a few people who don't like the anodizing color and ship the light back repeatedly. I'd much rather see that money go into better lights or cheaper lights. You can infer what you will from the new policy, but the experience of other people seems to say that it isn't there to cover up a poor product. I'll take experience over speculation any day.

- Russ

Yes, please ARC listen my voice too :

"Thanks for making and sending me the Arc4 IMHO the best EDC flashlight in the world , no other flashlight can compete with this little gem ....... and please remember that i am only interested in top-of-the-line flashlights do not want to waste my $ in luxury packages or manuals"

have a nice day /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif.

Fellow flasher,

The problem exists before the shipping process. Think about this. An ARC light in a bubble bag, winging it's way toward the lucky person who ordered it, is protected on all sides by a cushion of air. I am quite sure that regular handling of such a bag would not do damage to the contents. A force of 5Gs might, and that is rare in the shipping process.

It is the handling and protection of the product in all the facilities before shipping that bothers me. Are you aware that if a hard anodized item is banged against a softer material, the softer material will get damaged and not the anodized one? And are you aware that if a hard anodized item is banged against another one of the same hardness, it is very likely that they will damage each other? They are of equal hardness, so they have no protection against each other. Check with a materials and processes engineer, for verification of this fact.

So let us all get together and relate to ARC that we want them to do everything in their power to send us our lights as flawless as possible. Why place a hard anodized coating for protection, when the items protected will only bang against each other during the many phases of assembly? It doesn't make sense to me, my friends.

Together we stand, divided we fall!

Jeff

what russ said /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

however it might be good if peter posted a little explanation about it on his website, since people not "in-the-know" might easily miscontrue peter's true intentions (and understandably so) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Signore Valenzi,

I agree that the ARC products have great merit. Luxury packaging is not needed. Protection against damage during the multi-step manufacturing process is needed, and a legible user manual is also needed. Have we not found nice "black and white only" paperwork included in most of our consumer product purchases? Why not find it here?

I have no issue with the bubble jiffy shipping bag. It serves it's purpose well, but it will not pretty up already damaged lights. Nor will it allow perfect lights to get damaged. Damage is done while in the hands of ARC.

And hard anodizing color mismatches should not cause stress to ARC light owners.

Jeff

Jeff: arc will not ship out lights that are obviously damaged. the new warranty policy basically puts the power of discretion in their hands, not the customer's which can and has been abused (and apparently often enough to necessitate this change). if you feel a light you have gotten might be unsatisfactory, i'm sure arc will happily make arrangements to satisfy you. however if they feel you're being unreasonably or overly-fussy, they can show your the door.

regardless, you can always return the light with the 30-day satisfaction guarantee, and there's always the option of voting with one's wallet (if you feel peter isn't listening). i'll quote from the arc website:

[ QUOTE ]
You may return the light of course during the 30-day satisfaction guarantee period but not replace it with another light. Again, there will be no replacements because of a cosmetic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically you can return the light for any reason (including cosmetics). the change is NOT in the returns policy, but the exchange policy. you can return it for any reason (e.g. bad hair day, hamster died, etc), but you cannot exchange it unless the operation of the light (brightness, corrosion resistance, interoperability of parts) has been affected.

this has all been covered thoroughly in the aforementioned thread though, so you might want to look it up /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

i found the thread for you, in case you had trouble. click here for more information /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jeff, may I ask ... how many lights did you buy from Arc that where damaged because they were "banged" around during manufacturing? Do you even know how Arc handles their lights before shipping? Also remember, Arc sells seconds. A light with cosmetic blemishes will not be shipped as a regular light to begin with.

to put it simply, the change in arc's warranty was a move meant to protect arc, as abuse of their warranty was incurring monetary losses to them. we wouldn't want arc to go out of business, would we?

the change in the warranty was not a move to cover their collective *** for putting out shoddy and damaged products. quality control will be as stringent as before the change in arc's warranty was instituted /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Well, as a newbie, I have two lights which I should be receiving in a few days (a second and a first). However, this thread interests me because I'd love to hear an explanation from fans why it is that a company that sells fairly expensive lights (at least from a newbie's perspective), has had apparently major problems with the circuits in AAA and AA lights, and issues with quality in other aspects including shipping and cosmetics, deserves such dedicated supporters. Maybe I'll have a better idea when I get my lights, but when I ordered the second, I was told that I might actually get a light with a broken lens, which would render it not waterproof. That's a fair amount of money to pay for this situation (I would, of course, return it immediately). I realize this is a highly selective group of people with an unusual perpective about lights, but customer service is always be something I'm interested in....