waders and fast.

[Nymph-wristed]

Swattie87 wrote:
I see what you did there. I didn't help cover the first $200 for you this time though since I bought those Allen's, just a heads up.

Enjoy your free steak. By my math you get about 300ish outings out those waders...as long as you're not satisfied with that, no prob.

Hey, I didn't know Swarthmore produced "corporations are people" adherents :-D

I hear what you're saying, but I am endorsing the satisfaction policy more than the product. There are a lot of waders of equal quality out there. LL Bean gets plenty of my money throughout the year: socks, long underwear, dog crates for my Mini Cooper....

 

[Swattie87]

I didn't go to Swarthmore, but I did used to live along Swatara Creek and fish it a lot. That house didn't have air conditioning...I'd usually wet wade, no need for racking up wader miles there.

Corporations take advantage of plenty, and I'm not condoning that behavior by not supporting the free waders for life platform being proposed here. In this case, it's a corporation with a very reasonable and generous customer service policy (that should be commended) that's being taken advantage of however...And as a byproduct, the loyal customers of that corporation who inherit the higher resulting prices.

Do you use the satisfaction guarantee on the socks, long underwear and dog crates too? I mean, you really only have to pay for things once under your system of "endorsing" the satisfaction guarantee, right? I acknowledge that LLBean probably gets your money once for any given item, not so much sure of a second or subsequent time for the same item regardless of your satisfaction level though. And if you do actually BUY socks, long underwear, or dog crates the second time around, and don't "endorse" the guarantee, why the distinction on waders?

It would seem to me a better, more ethical, way to endorse the satisfaction guarantee would be to use it when you legitimately weren't satisfied with the product, and not use it when you were? No? (I understand you have to pay for your waders under this theory, assuming of course you were satisfied with them. You still haven't said you weren't, and your posts seem to imply you were, so I'm assuming you were.)

I sold my Mini Cooper and got back into a Tacoma. For the purposes of this thread anyway.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

My mistake... The Swattie thing would have been funny to that Swattie. I continue to buy and endorse LL Bean because of the guarantee. I have had plenty leak after one spring. I have had wading boots fall apart (twice). I am endorsing (and will continue to endorse) the fact that if you get a bad pair or are not satisfied in any way, they stand behind the product (or pull the ones who prove to be shite). A good company, as companies go, but their profit model, as you alluded, is based on loss due to returns, I would assume. Sorry if you are paying too much because I returned my leakers, but, hey, you can always have a change of heart and return yours too.

 

[pcray1231]

I look at it this way:

Companies with generous return policies is both good and bad for the customer, depending how you look at it.

Good, in that you can return anything your not satisfied with (like Swattie, I abhor taking advantage if you ARE satisfied, but ok if you're not).

Bad, in that losses from the generous return policy are built into the upfront price. So you typically get a lower quality product for your money, and end up having to use that return policy.

For someone like me, there are no physical Bean locations that are convenient to me. Hence, on "borderline" cases where I'm sorta satisfied, I end up leaning towards no return, because returning would be a hassle. So I'd only use the policy on egregious cases where a wader leaks out of the box, or within the first 6 months or something. And frankly, in years of buying waders, I've never had that happen on any brand, including basement brands like Hodgeman.

Basically it boils down to getting a slightly inferior product for the price with a bit of an insurance policy against the improbable.

I do have a pair of Beans, they're my backup waders now. Lasted 2 years before first leak, which was a little below the 2 1/2 years I'd expect from $250 waders ($100 per leak free year has always been my mark for all brands, with very good accuracy and repeatabillity). I attempted to patch up pinholes with partial success and retired them to backups before minor leaking turned into a flood. They're still wearable in a pinch, and see use on brushy streams to avoid tearing up my good waders, or on invasive riddled streams like Spring Creek. Didn't love them, didn't hate them. Satisfied but not thrilled. Probably wouldn't buy them again.

 

[Swattie87]

Nymph-wristed wrote:
Sorry if you are paying too much because I returned my leakers, but, hey, you can always have a change of heart and return yours too.

If they leaked after one Spring, I would. If subsequent pairs continued leaking after one Spring, I'd ask for my money back in lieu of replacement, and wouldn't recommend them as a good product to others, even strangers on a public message board.

Mine leaked after three Springs and I was satisfied with that, so I didn't return them.

To be clear, I'm not in disagreement with you returning them if they leaked prematurely in your mind (whatever that threshold is), and you weren't satisfied with that. I am in disagreement with either:

A. Recommending a product to others you weren't satisfied with, or
B. Invoking a satisfaction guarantee on a product you were satisfied enough with to recommend to others.

Either one or the other is happening here.