In turn, the consumer could have effectively circumvented the whole situation by either doing research on the product he was buying or by actually going into the store in the first place to ask questions about the product he wanted to buy. Printers are on display for 'test' drives and the staff is actually well versed in sales (unfortunately not the same training with actually running registers...).

Did I also miss in the lengthy complaint that the consumer complained to Brother for the unsatisfactory quality of said printer? No, I didn't think so...

"He who complains loudest gets his way" is not good karma...

Coming from a retail background (and, um, taking classes to get my 3rd degree, thank you very much), I can say that I would gladly give you a gift card to get out of my store and not perceive yourself to be smarter than me. Most stores, unless they OWN their online store, do not allow for online purchases to be returned in-store. I don't know (nor do I care) if this is the case at Office Max, but if you spent more time reading the fine print and less time disparaging the people who work there, maybe more commenters would be excited that you "won."

In this case, you just make all of us who strive for consumer justice look bad. Ass hat. (Roz - you can delete the vowels from the last two words... sorry, I just got riled!!)

But, to be quite honest, in this letter ... the customer sounds pretty damn "snooty" to me.

@structuralpoke:

@onesong:

Well I agree with many of the posters...the OP def has some kind of a chip on the proverbial shoulder.

After reading their policy I also am "unclear" as to whether or not a online purchase can be returned at the store. Personally if I was the op I'd have taken the return that they were offereing and simply not give the store any more business

What is wrong with shopping at Wal-Mart? I buy my groceries there, and yes sometimes my clothing as well. It's cheap, it's fast, and the staff is usually friendly. Honestly, I hardly deal with the staff but in the times I have there have been no cause for concern. (YMMV)

In reviewing the EECB to Office Max, it seemed pretty angry in tone. I'm sure if I spent the time and money, and put in the obvious sweat equity into obtaining two degrees I would be a bit miffed I walked into a store and was treated poorly. But like a criminal? It has nothing to do with your education and moreso with your intent. Even those with high levels of intelligence commit crimes. We are all only human, and bound to make mistakes. Someone could have very easily read this letter and been put off by it - the holier than thou attitude that could be inferred (whether accurate or not) - and responded accordingly.

I'm glad the customer got the result they wanted, it probably could have been handled differently, with fewer threats and less emotion in the letter.

@MyTQuinn:

LOL'ing at work again....
thanks for the chuckle.

oh but "frankly, if we wanted to be treated like unintelligent criminal garbage, we'd be pouring the tens of thousands of dollars we have provided for Office Max into Wal-Mart." is so touché.

Mmmmkay...

Someone who understands how to do an EECB, but missed the Post on letter-writing. At the very least, he should have slept on the letter first before hitting (pounding?) send.

Yes, OfficeMax was wrong in how they handled this attempt at a return. However, to mention their large billable hours and four degrees was WAY overboard. That is equally condescending as OfficeMax was to them.

Their letter could have been much more "short and sweet".

His letter makes me feel sorry for the manager. So much for treating the customer service with courtesy and respect.

If he's written something simple and used poor grammar and spelling and capitalization, higher-ups may not have even read it or taken it seriously. Realistically, showing that you're are (over)educated puts you in a constituent bracket that tells them that you have both money and influence. I wouldn't have gone this far, but he got what he wanted and probably a few burst blood vessels, too.

I thought the apology sounded sincere, and not a form letter. Bravo.

A small problem with attitude and customer service.
A HUGE problem with an ass hat who thinks he owns the world because of his education, car he drives, phone he uses, etc. Bet if they acted better they would have been treated better. Get a grip loser.

I own no iPhones and still expect to be treated well as a customer. But then, I print receipts and bring them with me. I assume this guy didn't want his iPhone kept as proof of purchase. And they're fairly hard to staple to return receipts.

But they don't have a printer, you say. They tested the one they bought to see if they liked it. Perhaps they could have printed the receipt then.

I'm more than happy to pick on incompetent managers, and I don't like Office Max. But in this case, based on the tone of the letter, I'm not sure the blame lies entirely with the store.

When is the world going to wake up to the fact that brick and mortar stores don't want the crummy returns that their company sold cheapskates over the internet? They don't WANT it. You, by choice, were NOT their customer, so why should they bend over backwards to help you?

I can see the store manager's position. Geez! If they'd purchased at the store and didn't like the product, the store would have been happy to take the return.

This is a type of weaker story we sometimes see on Comsumerist. Oh, the indignation! Oh, the inconvenience. Oh, the wrath!

All stores with websites should make it clear that the return policy only applies to the same conditions in which the sale was made. If online, follow the return policies online. If on-site, follow the return policies at the store.

It's not rocket science.

"But with both of our iPhones displaying the receipt and the bill of lading in the store manager's hands" is my favorite part of this letter. Is 1 somehow better than 2?

This writer reminds me of people that want to be addressed as "doctor" in social settings.

I think your comments should be a template for what is contemplated by the comments code. That said, I also think that, in view of the circumstances, none of the comments here runs afoul of that code. The criticism is justified.

Oh, the irony! A man complaining of condescension shows how condescension should be done. No reason to trot out how many degrees he has (my wife and I have 4 degrees between us - BFD), or gratutously insult people who choose to shop at WalMart. On the other hand, he's angry, and righteously so. But it's that vitriol that is the source of what many in this thread find offensive about his letter.

Here's a suggestion: write the letter when you're angry, print it, then put it away. Read it again in a few days. If you see still nothing wrong with it, hand it to a dispassionate, uninvolved friend and invite him or her to critique it. Had this been done here, I think a lot of the crap would have been toned down or omitted. And the final result would have been no different.

@Mr. Guy: I really hope that is the case, but I'm willing to wager that Roz just has not gotten around to reading this thread yet, and that we will be seeing the ban/censor button used soon.

But I do agree with you and Skokie, just because someone is a "victim," it does not make them a saint, and as now pointed out, this guy pretty much lied/weaseled his letter by omitting (and I would say knowingly doing so) part of the return policy.

Whether the letter was haughty or not, it had the elements of a great customer complaint letter. To wit:

* it said what happeened,
* it said what should have happened,
* it said what the customer wanted done to fix the situation.

And lastly, it worked. There are people who do things on principle, and it sounds like this guy is one of them. It's not the money that matters; it's that he was betrayed by a store that he liked and trusted.

My guess is that he'll never shop at that particular store again.

@dveight: that may be so, but the ban/disemvowel button hasn't been wielded yet in this case, and there does seem to be plenty of comments that could have elicited a rebuke. In truth, I hope that they are tolerant of people's honest reactions when somebody writes an effective EECB but also comes off as a completely unsympathetic jerk in the process (just being honest, please don't ban me, consumerist overlords!). As Skokie Guy said "having a story posted on Consumerist should not confer automatic sainthood for the 'victim'"

This nut has way too much time on his hands. The basic rules of effective complaining are as follows.

1. Never claim to spend thousands of dollars in a retailer unless you really do, they know the customers who throw around that kind of cash.

2. Don't be an a## right out of the gate. Most of the time calm, rational, professional behavior will get you much further with a policy quoter.

3. Don't state you'll never shop there again. EVERYONE says that and 99% of the time they are back a week later.

4. Realize that you alone are not going to put a multi-million dollar corporation out of business.

5. They really don't care who you know or what groups you are a member of, the bottom line, make you happy, throw the cheapest offer at you, and get you back to shopping. You are simply a dollar figure to large companies, probably worth about $2500 per year and thats all they care about.

That being said, I would bet that apology letter didn't come from the staff. No HR department in the world would force them to sign it. I suspect the District or Regional VP probably put it together to satisfy some wacko!

Some people are educated beyond their intelligence level.

if someone can get $150/hr, but chooses to spend upwards of three hours researching email addresses, writing this letter, etc, it can only mean two things: either that person does not have work available to do at that rate and as such has free time (which is unpaid, and therefore the person should not talk about the cost of time wasted), or that the benefit of getting the matter taken care of is greater than 150 times x hours spent (i.e., the refund is at least $450, based on your example)

so I have to assume that this is an expensive printer, which leaves me no other choice but to rip on the guy for being able to afford such a thing

@Elvisisdead: More like 1/8 the cost of their "time" since the most expensive Brothers ink jet from Office Max online is $229.99

@JadedScientist: Beat me to it, but yes, Office Max website does state:

"Products that are purchased online may be returned to an OfficeMax store location for a credit refund. Products may be exchanged if the originally purchased product is in stock at that store location."

Gotta love when people try to only use part of the policy when they make a stink.

Again, Office Max responded great to this, but I now change my stance, Office Max had every right to refuse a refund, and only offer a store credit.

Jim, don't try to tell the half truth, and with hold information, because that is just as good as lying.

Not to insult anyone, but if you actually met someone that spoke like that in real life, you'd refer to them as a douchebag.

Honestly, I don't think it's so much about calling this guy a tool as it is discussing the general point that when escalating to that level, being a tool is neither necessary nor helpful, and kind of dilutes the pool for everyone else who uses it.

The other important thing to note is that your personal time isn't worth what your billable rate goes for, jerk. Personal time is free to you, and unless you were postponing or otherwise not doing work that you were scheduled for, then it cost you exactly dick. The hourly rate thing only works if you're self employed, anyway. If someone else employs you as a consultant, you only see a percentage of that. I swear, in my time, I've seen more AnderPriceDeliotouchebags sound off about their hourly rates when they bring home 25% of the rate. The flipping plumber and electrician make more than you.

If anything, it's the opportunity cost of not being able to do something else with your free time. Fro that, $30 is fair compensation.

@Mr. Guy: Funny, I was actually going to ask what you asked. I do agree that sometimes a person needs to be called out on their inappropriate actions or expectations. Merely having a story posted on Consumerist should not confer automatic sainthood for the 'victim'.

So, I struggled to comment along the lines of the code and without calling him names (okay I did use pompous), but I framed my comments as a discussion of his EECB letter and tactics and what better strategies I feel would better serve him or anyone attempting to use a EECB.

That's fantastic. I'm still waiting for an apology from those cocksuckers at OfficeMax for yanking their corporate headquarters and 1000 jobs out of Cleveland for no good reason. (Needless to say, like Circuit City, they don't get a dime of my money).

yet no reprimands from comments moderator roz. no dismevowelment. could the consumerist comments code operates on a sliding scale, where "Don't attack people. Assume good faith" does not apply when the person is clearly a tool?

Because Jim's letter generated results, does not mean is should be a template for a succesful EECB.

To state that you are never patronizing a store destroys any reason for wanting to assist. If the receiver chooses to assist you anyhow, you're making them feel like an ass for helping someone who has made it clear that their assistance will be meaningless in terms 'saving' a disgruntled customer.

An educated and cultured person never flaunts their advantages over another. Your spending, your shopping preferences, your degrees, these only serve to lengthen the letter and distract from the main point.

Since you will likely be corresponding with someone without your same education and background, you are using your complaint letter to make clear you find them 'beneath' you, economically and educationally. Jim, this is especially pompous of you when your letter contains spelling and grammatical errors.

And despite this huge disgorement of words, never do you indicate an actual reason why you are dissatisfied with the printer or your reason for returning it. While that is not required, it might generate a bit of sympathy. It might also dissuade anyone receiving your EECB from thinking you're a 'retail renter' who simply needed to do one night of volume printing.

An executive, who is not part of the customer service team, receiving an unexpected mass email from an angry person wants to quickly assess the problem, its validity, and a solution.

As for the customer, yikes. Think of what his personal life must be like to cause him to fire off a complaint like that. I'm very happy that a $30 g/c was enough to placate him. His wife must walk around on eggshells.

"This guy sounds a little self important.."

Actually, he sounds like an attorney (although I'm not saying all attorneys are like that).

Chalk one up for lessening the effectiveness of the next legitimate EECB someone has to send to OfficeMax.

@nuttish: I agree that he's huffy, but the fact is, he was right and the "store" manager was wrong. This is worth printing because it shows Office Max upper management responding quickly and correctly to a problem, not because the OP is Mr. Personality.

Apparently four magnificent degrees doesn't save you from publicly exposing yourself as a crumb.

Since my wife and I only have three degrees between us, would we have gotten a gift card? Perhaps it would have been prorated to $22.50?

To be condescending, to condescend to us, to belittle us, to chastise us, to scold us, take your pick.

His letter is twice as long as it needs to be. He is not practiced at self-editing. It's obvious his two degrees aren't in English.

I am glad he got his money back. But before he charges someone else with being snooty, he needs to peek in the mirror first to get a good view of what snooty really looks like.

That being said- he's still right.

If you are not satisfied with your online OfficeMax purchase, simply return it to us in the complete and original packaging (together with all accessories and manuals) with your original sales receipt within 30 days of the date of purchase. We will gladly replace or repair the item, or return your money.

@lightaugust: @dveight: Thirded. Being wronged does not make it ok to be a douchebag.

That being said, glad you got it taken care of and all that.

Given this was an in-store item and the SKU could be returned there, it shouldn't have been an issue.

P.S. Kudos to OfficeMax for doing the right thing.

Well, they do have 4 degrees between them... got to put them to use somehow!

Consumerist, I humbly submit that this stuff doesn't serve you well. There is no shortage of really great stories, both of abuse and great resolutions, involving truly sympathetic people that I sincerely doubt publishing letters from arrogant grievance collectors like this paints the right picture of your consumer advocacy mission. Who threatens a nuclear attack when it's clear just contacting the right person will solve all your problems. Just sayin'.

I never worked at Office Max, but I did at Office Depot, and returns like these were pretty easy to deal with, granted that the item is carried at the store. As for training, knowing people at both OM and OD, training is a joke in most stores. New employees are hired and thrown on the floor the first day, without anything too formal. The EECB was great, but next time, just demand the names and phone numbers of the District and General managers, along with e-mails if can be, and deal with them.

Oh, forgot to mention in my last post, the OP also writing "wanted to be treated like unintelligent criminal garbage...into Wal-Mart" and stating that they have spent tens of thousands dollars, and having 4 degrees is the one sounding snooty.

I am glad to see that Office Max responded quickly and this was taken care of promptly. I cannot see how managers in retail continue to act this way. I can understand when there are times when companies need to stand their ground, but the OP was doing everything within Office Max's policy. How hard is it for managers and workers to look up their own stores policy?

Congrats on the EECB working.

On a side note, lets leave the comments such as "wanted to be treated like unintelligent criminal garbage...into Wal-Mart" off your letters, since there are people of intellegent people do shop at Wal-Mart. FYI, my fiancee also have 4 degrees between us and we occasionally shop at Wal-Mart.

1,250 words to say the store wouldn't accept the printer return.

Just saying.

Also, am I missing something or does the return policy not mention anything about being able to return online items to the retail stores?

It sounds like OfficeMax is agreeing they do this, but that's not what I would get from their return policy as quoted...

That appears to be a pretty good response from Officemax.