Quote: Originally Posted by evildrporkchop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I think the majority of customers don't abuse the programs, which is why they probably don't feel the need to be upfront about its definitions. Sephora just wants you to spend money, and it's easier for them to handle violations on a case-by-case basis rather than deter you from the get-go. I don't think Sephora routinely flags or cancels Flash memberships, and when it does happen, it does not have a large impact on consumer perception because it's a rare occurrence.
You see it as inappropriate and condescending. I see it as a smart business practice. It's akin to casino gambling and betting against the house; house always wins. Sephora is always going to write in the fine print to ensure they come out on top in the end.
However, I do understand the frustration over Sephora's grandiose promises then not delivering because I am Rouge and that program is a colossal joke.
Way more exciting than a political debate imo.
I don't see the fine print and legalese as inappropriate and condescending. It's rather typical and expected.
It just seems to me that if people with Flash or Rouge are abusing, say, a glitchy code (since those with free shipping would abuse it more than those without it), then Sephora needs to fix the code. Since the problem is on their end. Same with the many $1 orders. It's on Sephora for failing to set any boundaries. That's their failure and their problem to solve. Scapegoating the customer for their own problem is condescending and inappropriate. I guess I just view the customer/business relationship as completely impersonal, and little else than a transaction. And that seems very personal (and parental) to send warnings, especially so when the failure falls on Sephora and not on the customer. The customer did nothing wrong and doesn't deserve a scolding just because Sephora hasn't managed to get its story straight and failed to set clear boundaries.
I guess my view is that Sephora's "intent" with their free shipping programs is completely irrelevant so long as its not clearly stated somewhere. Customers aren't mind-readers. If Sephora "intended" *Unlimited* to mean "every so often", and if they "intended" *No matter...(how little)* to mean mid size orders, well, sucks to be them for saying things they don't mean, and stupid them if they assumed that customers would just know Sephora's "intent" or would read that "intent" into the text in preference to plain English.
All of this talk about Sephora seems like it might be noise anyway, because I went to the beauty talk forums, and the few threads I found about flagging accounts for people who have Rouge/Flash, lacked any real substance, and was a lot of noise. Maybe you know of better threads, but the one's I found, these people had problems with their orders (problems which seemed unrelated to me) and then they seemed to infer the worst, and get everyone all worked up, and I just didn't see any real substance there that made me think that Sephora is, in fact, discouraging many small orders.
I think the majority of customers don't abuse the programs, which is why they probably don't feel the need to be upfront about its definitions. Sephora just wants you to spend money, and it's easier for them to handle violations on a case-by-case basis rather than deter you from the get-go. I don't think Sephora routinely flags or cancels Flash memberships, and when it does happen, it does not have a large impact on consumer perception because it's a rare occurrence.
You see it as inappropriate and condescending. I see it as a smart business practice. It's akin to casino gambling and betting against the house; house always wins. Sephora is always going to write in the fine print to ensure they come out on top in the end.
However, I do understand the frustration over Sephora's grandiose promises then not delivering because I am Rouge and that program is a colossal joke.
Way more exciting than a political debate imo.
I don't see the fine print and legalese as inappropriate and condescending. It's rather typical and expected.
It just seems to me that if people with Flash or Rouge are abusing, say, a glitchy code (since those with free shipping would abuse it more than those without it), then Sephora needs to fix the code. Since the problem is on their end. Same with the many $1 orders. It's on Sephora for failing to set any boundaries. That's their failure and their problem to solve. Scapegoating the customer for their own problem is condescending and inappropriate. I guess I just view the customer/business relationship as completely impersonal, and little else than a transaction. And that seems very personal (and parental) to send warnings, especially so when the failure falls on Sephora and not on the customer. The customer did nothing wrong and doesn't deserve a scolding just because Sephora hasn't managed to get its story straight and failed to set clear boundaries.
I guess my view is that Sephora's "intent" with their free shipping programs is completely irrelevant so long as its not clearly stated somewhere. Customers aren't mind-readers. If Sephora "intended" *Unlimited* to mean "every so often", and if they "intended" *No matter...(how little)* to mean mid size orders, well, sucks to be them for saying things they don't mean, and stupid them if they assumed that customers would just know Sephora's "intent" or would read that "intent" into the text in preference to plain English.
All of this talk about Sephora seems like it might be noise anyway, because I went to the beauty talk forums, and the few threads I found about flagging accounts for people who have Rouge/Flash, lacked any real substance, and was a lot of noise. Maybe you know of better threads, but the one's I found, these people had problems with their orders (problems which seemed unrelated to me) and then they seemed to infer the worst, and get everyone all worked up, and I just didn't see any real substance there that made me think that Sephora is, in fact, discouraging many small orders.
