iwasbanned wrote: ↑February 10th 2022, 9:51am
I love the Ming watches I've owned. Definitely different from anything out there. I do think though that they are watering down their design language by coming out with so many models. Same issue I have with Grand Seiko. Regardless, I have owned a couple both top notch quality. I do think though that because they release so many small batches of limited editions that if systemic problems arise in a batch, it's hard for them to address. Personally I think they had a systemic issue with the lume on the divers. I have the same diver and noticed the irregularity on the lume myself but it wasn't enough for me to follow up on it. You can see it on the lume picture below. Anyway, I suspect they didn't have a lot of hands if any on hand to replace the uneven ones. To Ming's credit, they did offer a guy a full refund, what more can you ask for. You aren't happy with the product, here's your money back. I don't think companies owe you more than that. With a small start up like Ming which relies on word of mouth and social media to spread the word, bad reviews aren't a good thing and they have to protect their reputation. They have every right to refuse service to a customer they perceive may harbor ill will now or in the future...
Bad reviews aren't a good thing, but handling them well bolsters, especially a fledgling company's, reputation for aspiring to excellence, customer satisfaction, and outstanding customer service, and turns the situation into a good thing.
Given Ming's PR/CS manager left the company amidst a number of issues and frustration with a hostile segment of the Ming buying public is telling. And given the defensive way the pain in the ass in the OP got dealt with by the powers that be who assumed the task, suggests that PR and CS are evidently not their fields.
The customer was clearly out to make Ming look bad by posting before contacting CS to try to resolve the issue which should have dictated taking a narrow CS course from the git go. Having responded proper, if the pain in the ass stirred the pot regardless, Ming missed the opportunity to have controlled the narrative to their advantage.
IMO Ming should have responded by offering a refund without the explanation, conditions of inspection, and whatnot, period. The customer took issue with something Ming knew they had an issue with. Not happy? We'll gladly give you a refund. If you decide that's what you want to do, send the watch back and we will issue you a refund forthwith given the non-abused, unsized, etc. condition of the watch. Ming could then offer the watch at a slight discount as NRS - new returned stock, that is, fully inspected and guaranteed.
Instead, they made excuses for a QC issue, left their commitment to quality and CS open to question, and put themselves in the position to be perceived as snobs - something they don't currently have the following or the heritage to be able to afford to do. Again, Ming missed the opportunity to be able to put a positive spin on the situation by doing business with the pain in the ass again. And you're right, Ming has the right to refuse to do business with someone, but in this case, they would have been better served by the strategic discretion not to exercise it. They're building a brand, not a cult.
I don't know what Ming manufactures in-house and what they source, but if the hand sets came in with the issue, they should have been rejected out of hand, so to speak. If Ming applied the lume and they turned out poorly, the watches should not have been released. While this may have had some financial and delivery implications, ultimately delivering the product is what counts.
And instead of being cornered into taking the position that a defect was within their QC standards, Ming could have bolstered their reputation by specifying the delay was due to the hands
not meeting their high standards and were therefore being replaced. The cost of doing so would likely have been considerably less than the damage done to their brand by the bungled way Ming handled the situation.
) in/on their watch models.
2025 3flushes Media.^^^
