Airspy US - Disturbing and Ongoing Customer Service Issue

[GTR8000]

@KC1UA For the sake of others reading this thread, can you clarify whether their timeline of the RMA "misunderstanding" is accurate?

In reading your original post, it seems that you were very clear early on that you were waiting on the RMA #/authorization itself, not the status of the repair, and that the response from them ranged from "we're waiting for headquarters" to "we want to figure out what the issue is before issuing an RMA".

If that is all accurately documented as happening within the first two weeks of you contacting them in late Nov/early Dec, then the whole "miscommunication" excuse doesn't quite add up.

 

[Airspy-US]

I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Ditto.

 

[Airspy-US]

@KC1UA

In reading your original post, it seems that you were very clear early on that you were waiting on the RMA #/authorization itself, not the status of the repair, and that the response from them ranged from "we're waiting for headquarters" to "we want to figure out what the issue is before issuing an RMA".

In fairness, we did not have knowledge of that account. All we were asked is the status of the RMA.

Direct quotes since the customer is present: "Happy New Year....status update please?" and "What is the status of this?"

In fact, the part "we want to figure out what the issue is". hints at the belief that the unit was sent in and is awaiting processing. That is part the customer did not catch. (we are assuming that quote is correct but did not check)

We do have to determine if the unit is functioning correctly, and if it can be corrected, before the repair/replacement decision is made.

The last part "before we issue the RMA" is not accurate. We did not say that. RMAs are typically issued within one to two business days of determining that one is required. Most issues are user error and can be resolved via email. When an RMA is requested, if the reason is not stated we request what item is involved, what the reason is, and what the symptoms are, and often we will ask follow-up questions.

Here are three typical cases: (and all these have actually happened)

1. Customer requests an RMA because the RF connector on the unit broke. We issue an RMA within one to two business days. The customer sends the unit in and it goes into the repair queue, is repaired (or sometimes replaced depending on the damage), and shipped.

2. Customer requests an RMA because they can't hear anything on their new Mini. After a few back and forth emails and some screenshots it is determined that the gain was never raised above 0. We request they do that and re-test, and often the issue is resolved. NO RMA is issued.
(we often recommend specific gain settings to start from)

3. (this one is much longer)
The customer requests an RMA.
We ask what the RMA is for and why.
They state it's for an Airspy R2.
We again ask why.
They reply "it's not working".
We ask how it is not working.
They reply they don't know.
We ask if there is a Windows connect sound when they connect it.
They say there is.
We ask if they installed SDR# and if it runs.
They say it is and it does
We ask if the software sees the unit (if the ESN is shown)
They state they it is selected. (often the issue is resolved here because it was not selected)
We ask if they hit the play button. (often the issue is resolved here because they did not)
They say they did, but there is no activity.
We ask about settings and often request screenshots (shortening this because you can see how involved it can get)
Finally, it is determined that the unit has lost RF sensitivity.
We issue an RMA within one to two business days. and... (see case #1)

The vast majority of issues are in case 1 or 2.

 

[KC1UA]

Had I received an RMA# I'd have sent the defective mini back long before I did, as in as soon as possible. My timeline as far as I'm concerned is completely accurate. On 11/21 I asked for an RMA# for the first time and stated I thought they should have sent me one and dealt with the problem on their end. I was advised they wanted to identify the issue first. On 12/8 having had no update I asked for a full refund or replacement, which with logical thinking should mean I need an RMA, without actually stating the letters R-M-A. A 12/13 email from them indicated they should be able to start resuming RMA's in a couple of days. A 12/20 email from them indicated they should be able to get all RMA's processed by the end of the year. A January 3 email from them indicated they would be resuming RMA's over the weekend. My email to them on 1/18 clearly indicates I have not received an RMA# yet. An email from them, right after I posted this thread on 1/19, expresses surprise that I have not been issued an RMA# yet.

As far as I am concerned, either I clearly indicated, or it could be inferred from my emails, that I was still awaiting an RMA#. I stand by this. Sadly, through miscommunication or whatever, it got to this point.

 

[Airspy-US]

We see a few errors on the initial account (here) we would like to point out. Some we will not point out.

"So to summarize, since their email on 1/3/24 I have had no further communication with them."

That is not true, or is at least outdated. We replied on 1/18 and 1/19. (or at least we see emails from those dates to which we replied within 24 hours). Those two emails were the first we had received since 1/3. That 1/3 email from the customer was "Happy New Year....status update please?" to which re replied that same day "We had to stop RMAs for end-of-year inventory but will be resuming those this weekend (Sunday)." We did not infer the need of an RMA from "Happy New Year....status update please?" or similar emails. We not see how anyone could have. We hope how you see that can very reasonably mean a request for the status of an RMA that was sent in, as we believed was the case.

The 1/18 reply was the RMA issuance in response to the comment "I need an RMA# by the conclusion of today please." to which we replied "What? You didn't receive an RMA?". That was when we realized the customer did not receive the RMA information. Before that was only generic "status request" emails. You can see how a little more detail revealed the miscommunication. We then followed that up with another reply that starts "If you did not receive the RMA....." and it contained RMA data. We did that without waiting for a reponse to our question. We also explained that we were under the impression he was waiting for an RMA to be processed (not issued).

Some other points to keep in mind: The initial correspondence was mid-November during the Black Friday sale (started on 11/17 - note customer's account of his initial contact). When that sale happens, a few things occur. All RMA processing is stopped (in fact, everything is stopped except for order processing and some correspondence), as we do not have the time or space for the tech. We suspend our "quick ship" program, as we cannot guarantee orders received by 3 PM will be shipped that day (we still have not resumed that guarantee, as it often takes a month or two to recover). In fact we usually process a month's worth of orders each week for several weeks and sometimes those orders take several days to process. We also halted RMAs for end-of-year inventory. We believe all this was communicated to this customer.

Yes, we did want to reach out to HQ to make sure there was not some change in design that would account for the differences between the old and new units - requiring different settings. This was beyond any of the three typical cases we mentioned above. As stated in post 1 "HQ was very busy that week" was our reply. They were also in the middle of the Black Friday sale.

This may well be a result of the chaos that happens during every sale - especially the Black Friday sale. We put nearly all effort into getting orders processed and shipped. The customer's account puts his request squarely in the first few days of that sale when things are often at "peak chaos". However, until 1/18 we had been under the impression the unit was awaiting RMA processing, not RMA issuance. The generic requests gave no indication that an RMA had not been received - until 1/18 at which point that was immediately corrected.

Even upon review of the emails involved, the 1/18 email was the first time it was stated that "I need an RMA#". We quoted some of the previous requests which had no such statement.

Again, this all comes down to a misunderstanding for which the customer was waiting for something we believe he already had.

 

[KC1UA]

So to conclude, we agree to disagree. Happens all the time, and that's fine. As the former coach of my favorite football team once said, "we're on to Cincinnati".

 

[Airspy-US]

For reference, we searched every message from the customer and the last two referencing needing an RMA issued were 11/21 (within a few days of the initial contact after which time we requested time to consult with HQ to establish this was not a settings issue) then not until 1/18 (quoted previously) at which time we responded within 24 hours. Everything else consisted of 'status request'.

So the statement "As far as I am concerned, either I clearly indicated, or it could be inferred from my emails, that I was still awaiting an RMA#" is likely true in that they believe they did that, but the evidence shows they did not "clearly indicate" that between the two dates mentioned.

The problem with requiring someone to infer something is they do not have the benefit of knowing what you were thinking when you wrote an email. Reading between the lines has never been a reliable form of communication.

 

[Airspy-US]

So to conclude, we agree to disagree. Happens all the time, and that's fine. As the former coach of my favorite football team once said, "we're on to Cincinnati".

Yes, we agree to disagree. We have stated our side and we are fine letting the readers decide. We know that there are some who will take either side regardless, but we believe those who are not biased will see this was a simple miscommunication.

We would be interested if you can state when you 'clearly indicated' the need for an RMA between 11/21 and 1/18. We don't doubt you believe you did that, but we cannot interpret any emails that way or see any direct request between those dates. The term RMA is not mentioned directly in any of them. Most of the communications between those dates was (direct quotes) "Any updates?", "What is the status of this?", "Happy New Year....status update please?". with nearly all of it within about one month prior to 1/18 and ending on 1/3.

Are those where you believe you stated the need for an RMA? We simply cannot infer that need from those questions.

The first stated need after 11/21 that we can find was on 1/18 and we responded quickly to that request (again - within a day).

 

[Airspy-US]

@KC1UA response from them ranged from "we're waiting for headquarters" to "we want to figure out what the issue is before issuing an RMA".

For reference, we specifically searched for the term "figure out what the issue is" and that cannot be found, so that direct quote is not accurate.

Also the concept of 'figure out what the issue is before issuing an RMA' is not one we would have conveyed.

Yes, most issues can be resolved without issuing RMAs, but that was not the case here. We were beyond a settings issue. That was established in the first few days. It is true we wanted to reach out to the design team for their input.

We found the 'quoted' reference to identification. It was in reference to the design team and wanting to reach out to them. The complete email reply was "We want to identify the issue first." (note where that sentence ends - the term RMA was not used) and that was immediately followed up with the below quoted reply from us to clarify that statement. We just wanted to establish that there was not a 'no-shipping-required' solution.

We want to check to see if they have seen this issue before.

Yes, testing at the factory may be an option.
We are not questioning the testing you have done.

We just want an opinion from the design team or factory.

Obviously, this was not a routine issue, nor one we have seen much of - if at all previously or since.

 

[KevinC]

I think both sides have voiced their themselves enough for others to make an informed decision. Closing.