Discussion in 'Hot Deals - Find a Great Deal? Share It Here.' started by bigrig, Jan 5, 2012.
Panasonic DMC-GF3CK - LUMIX GF3C 12.1 Megapixel Compact System Camera [14 mm Lens Kit] - Overview
Did anyone get this?
I called to confirm both lenses were included. When they confirmed, I ordered, but then only received the 14mm.
I called to complain and they gave me a ticket number.
I later received an RMA with a 15% restocking fee attached!!!
Terrible customer service Panasonic!
Yeah, I have the same issue. I called and the CSR seemed agreeable and created the ticket to ship my zoom lens, but said it could take 6 weeks to approve?? Hoping they do the right thing.
It is interesting you mention this, as I was going to purchase this but I couldn't find anywhere that said the 14-42 was included so I passed. I also went into a local store and they had the 14mm kit but also didn't include the 14-42. Where did you see that it included both? Just curious.
Most states have consumer protection laws with real teeth. Here in Oregon, look at the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). Most states have something very similar.
The Oregon UTPA, in general, offers payment for the difference in value of the item advertised and the item sold, as well as attorney fees.
Because attorney's fees are included, almost all consumer protection lawyers will take your case for free. These cases are easy to win and the attorney will get paid by Panasonic. The bigger the fight from Panasonic, the greater the fees awarded by the court, so attorneys love these cases.
This system of incentives forces Panasonic to settle quickly for the actual value of the item.
I haven't fully described the Oregon laws, or the laws from any other state. You'll need to get your own lawyer for your particular case. I know for a fact that Panasonic was offering the two lens kit on their website for $450, because I saw the advertisement and I passed on the offer. But you will need to present some form of evidence, so if you've got a screenshot or email you should be sitting pretty.
I should mention that it may be worthwhile just to send a quote of the relevant portion of the UTPA in an email to Panasonic customer service. Sometimes that is enough to get the wheels in motion.
Hmm, I went through the cache in my Chrome browser, seems like I can only go back 10 days. Hopefully it won't be necessary. They know they had the same offer in December for $499.99.
Thanks for the feedback, Aegon.
Meggie: The webpage I saw only said "Additional Lens Included". I called customer support and they told be it included the 14-42.
I called them again this morning and was told they would check if I purchased during the promotion and would hear back in 3-5 days...
Bigrig: I was a little suspicious of the lack of detail on the order page, so I printed off the website page showing “Additional Lens Included”
The same website layout and text was used during the December promotion of the same two lens kit. The panasonic USA homepage still shows a link to the "two lens kit" with a photo of both the 14mm and 14-42. The detailed photos of the kit show two lenses. For a period of about 5 days, the two lens kit page showed an additional button saying something akin to "extra lens included".
The above words are merely words. I'm just pointing out that any reasonable person going to the Panasonic site during that time period would believe the offer included both lenses. If you've got a printout of the order page, then that is great evidence.
I know from personal experience that a lot of people get upset at the talk of laws and lawyers. But personally, I'm upset that Panasonic reneged on their offer and pulled a bait and switch. That kind of behavior is unacceptable. Fewer companies pull these kinds of tricks because the consumer protection laws generally provide excellent protection for consumers, and quite simply companies can't get away with this behavior. If these laws didn't exist, this kind of trickery would happen far more often.
Acatt, thanks for the clarification. I might have looked after the promotion ended, as I didn't see that. Or I didn't look closely enough! I hope you get it resolved to your advantage. Good luck!
Panasonic say they are not going to honor the sale.
I got a call this morning and was told it was a typographical error. She couldn’t explain why Customer Service had confirmed the lens was included.
Amazon sell the lens for $135 with free shipping, so for the sake of a $70 (?) lens, Panasonic will:
1. Pay shipping both ways
2. Lose a $450 ‘direct’ sale
3. Have to refurbish a camera and lens
4. Anger a customer
If Panasonic think that is worth $70, I think they need some new accountants.
Good luck bigrig! I have the printout of the website if you need it, but it didn’t do me any good.
Aegon: Thanks for your advice. If it was a bigger sale I might get lawyers involved, but I just don’t want to waste any more time on this.
I purchased one of these in December with the "free" lens. They had this for $499 for quite some time for the holidays, maybe 4-6 weeks? I utilized via my employer's website that gives me access to their EPP site.
Anyways, it was very obvious on the site when I bought, and most importantly, your cart indicated both the 14mm kit and the 14-42 lens - 2 separate items. They actually charged $0.01 for the zoom lens.
When I saw this post for $450, at first I thought the price was lowered, but visiting Panasonic's site clearly indicated to me this wasn't true - there was no extra lens included at the $450 price. Of course I knew what it use to look like (a specific item in your cart for the extra lens). I do recall seeing a vertical banner ad on their site still referencing a free lens, but saw no details regarding which camera/kit this might be for. I think it was just an old banner ad no longer applicable. And as I said, I even added the GF3 to my cart to see if there was a promotion - which i didn't see based on no lens being added to my cart.
Hope you can get it resolved. I think I'd be more interested in the GF3X with the new PZ 14-42X lens. It's $562 via their EPP store.
Separate names with a comma.