Yellow SPRAWLs wrong color - questionable service from SPRAWL

[guitarsamurai]

Hey guys

I've received my yellow sprawls earlier, but was dissapointed to see they do not look like the ones shown on the website. The sprawls i recieved are actually Yellow, whereas the website shows an almost white one with yellow hue.

I contacted sprawl about this, and they acknowledged the mistake and said they are working on fixing it. Too little too late if you ask me. I really liked the color on the site, and I'm a little indifferent about the ones I got. In any case, they are clearly a different product.

I contacted sprawl about a refund, as I've felt misled and they gave me a product that DOES not look like it does on the website. I would also be happy if maybe they made a discount so I'd feel better about paying for something I didn't totally want. Frankly, I'm shocked that they won't put a disclaimer on the website describing the actual color - saying it is darker than appears. They said they would not offer any more discount but would offer a refund on what I paid for the shorts, but that I would have to pay for shipping the shorts to them personally.

So now basically, I have to pay to ship the shorts back out of my own pocket to get a refund because of a mistake SPRAWL made. Do you think this is fair? I dont' think I should lose money on a mistake SPRAWL made...that is not good customer service and that is not treating the customer fairly. If the product was as described I would have no problem with it. However I don't feel I made the mistake in this case.

I've read on alot of reviews SPRAWL has good service. Based on this case I question that. They seam at best reasonable, but are not willing to go the extra mile to ensure the customer is satisfied witht their product. I've dealt with many classier companys that would acknowledge their mistake, and offer a discount or compensation for their mistake.

 

[Foolkiller]

I believe what happened was that their first delivery of shorts were semi transparent and made of a thinner semi transparent material that met toughness standards but were not the same shorts they provided Buentello. As a result the initial shipment was discounted as they were effectively the wrong product that met the right standards. The shorts you have received are actually likely the Buentello model shorts. What you are disappointed in is that you didn't get a pair from the botched shipment.... which is a little odd to me. You got them discounted to boot, probably, because of the initial runs defective nature, so I am not surprised they expect you to drop some bones if you actually want shorts they didn't intend to release and only did so briefly to appease people fervently requesting them.

"Hey, these are the shorts you intended to release, not the ones that you paid for but arrived made of a defective material you didn't expect or actually want... I want your manufacturer's mistakes, assholes!"

 

[Soid]

He actually has a point. The ones on the site look NOTHING like the ones people are posting, and he got something he didn't want.. Anyways I was gonna order the shorts but waited for them to change the pic or for someone to post a pic. When someone did post it, they looked completely different. Should he pay for the shipping? Well, I guess not in this case,

Anyways, I'd wait till the white versions come out because I'm sure those will be phat.

 

[Foolkiller]

To an extent he does have a point, he did not receive what the pictured on the site depicted, but the shorts from the get go were meant to resemble Buentello's yellow shorts rather than arrive looking washed out. Sprawl put up the picture of the defective shorts, noting they were defective and gave a discount on them to boot. Once they received the second shipment of correct shorts they have stopped selling the defects and have instead been providing the shorts they originally intended to.

I can understand he is a little pissed he didn't get the shorts he thought he was getting, however the shorts he wants were only likely made available because they already had to endure problems with a bad batch of shorts earlier this year. I'm not surprised they didn't want to suffer the same financial woes and problems related to trashing a bunch of brand new shorts that met all their specifications save the fact they weren't the colour they were meant to be to begin with. They probably shifted the defective shorts ASAP and started providing the shorts they had intended to.

Steve from Sprawl came here to mention this and there are already SEVERAL threads about this and the discrepancy between the first batch and second batch. I'm sure he'd be willing to find one guy who got a pair of the defective run willing to exchange shorts so they don't have see through shorts.

 

[Adino]

Yea i see your point but I dont agree that SPRAWL has any falt here. Steve posted on this forum about the colors of the shorts and how they differ. He also is changing the picture online. He also offered you a refund. So you have to pay acouple of bucks outa pocket, no biggy. I have worked in the clothing industy for several years now and believe me what SPRAWL is offering is above and beyond what most other companies do. I think your expecting too much.

 

[PhenøM]

Yeah I was the first person to post that they DID NOT look like the Buentello shorts and Steve replied the pic was bad.

 

[ClampXVII]

what do they look like? Isn't everyone getting the ones posted on the Sprawl.tv site? I might order those so which one is everyone getting?

 

[PhenøM]

You are getting the darker yellow ones than the ones you see on the site. It is like the HCK shorts SSGear has pictured. They are red, but in his picture they look orange.

 

[Fozzy1]

[/QUOTE]

are the only pics I have seen and I have posted those from a quote off IL.

hmmm...

it is odd you want defective transparent shorts dude, I can understand your point, but essentially u want a refund and for them to pay for the shipping back to them. What if you got taxed when they arrived should Sprawl be responsible for this too?

I'm, confused to say the least.

~Foz

 

[Fozzy1]

I contacted sprawl about a refund, as I've felt misled and they gave me a product that DOES not look like it does on the website. I would also be happy if maybe they made a discount so I'd feel better about paying for something I didn't totally want. Frankly, I'm shocked that they won't put a disclaimer on the website describing the actual color - saying it is darker than appears. They said they would not offer any more discount but would offer a refund on what I paid for the shorts, but that I would have to pay for shipping the shorts to them personally.
.

I also want to address this. With certain m,aterials it can be hard to get a true to colour image when taking the photo. Also monitors display colours differently, no doubt an image on my PC will appear different on say Phenom's or Soids, its just how the computer is told display the colours.

Personally. i dont see a problem with u paying the shipping back. I mean, say you got a pair of shorts, but YOU got the sizing wrong, sprawl will happily replace them with a bigger/smaller size, and ship them back to you, providing you ship them first.

Its all about give and take

~Foz

 

[Deleted member 56619]

The yellow ones are transparent. I know what hes saying, the shorts i got are not the same color as the ones on their site. The ones i got are yellow and seethru, the ones on the site were more of a off white. I dont mind though i still like em and the transparensy(sp?) isnt really a problem. If they make white ones though, and i hope they do, they better double up the layers because if you can see into the yellow i bet those white ones with a little sweat will be like lookin through a window.

 

[guitarsamurai]

It's not that I can't afford to pay for shipping, but I am upset at principle. I do not believe I am at fault, yet I will take a loss because an item i purchased was misrepresented.

1. I only bought the shorts after looking at the sprawl website. I did not not check the forums to see if they were a different color. I didn't know I had to do that - do you expect anyone who buys a piece of clothing to check some newsgroup first to make sure it looks like it does on the company's website?

2. I bought the shorts according the the picture and description on the sprawl website. It described an almost transparent short with the color close to white. The picture posted matched the verbal description, so I assumed both were accurate. Why would they post a picture that doesn't look like the real product. The least they should have done is put a disclaimer on the site saying the acutal product is darker than appears.

3. SPRAWL acknowledged fault, yet did not make means to ensure I was satisfied. This is a cardinal sin in customer service. If a company admits fault, they should make up for it. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't attempt to do this.

They are great shorts, and look alright, but bottom line is it is not what I wanted, and not as described.
If I had bought something and made a mistake in color or size, the fault would lie with me. But in this case I was clearly misrepresented. I even see on the form the owner guy admits the picture is wrong. Anyways, I think a classier company would've responded better.

 

[guitarsamurai]

The posting of the bad picture was acknoledged by the owner at least 2 weeks ago, yet the website still CURRENTLY shows the wrong picture. It should have been changed already, or they should have mentioned it on the SPRAWL website instead of the newsform. Something as simple as "color may differ slightly from image" would suffice. Not everyone checks these forms all the time, and you shouldn't be expected to. The picture on the sites show a White short, but I got light yellow.

 

[RobT]

About paying the shipping to send them back, think about this;

If you drove to town, bought something, then got home and realised it was the wrong item (or had some other problem): would you expect the store you bought it from to pay your fuel costs to drive back to town?

 

[Fozzy1]

The posting of the bad picture was acknoledged by the owner at least 2 weeks ago, yet the website still CURRENTLY shows the wrong picture. It should have been changed already, or they should have mentioned it on the SPRAWL website instead of the newsform. Something as simple as "color may differ slightly from image" would suffice. Not everyone checks these forms all the time, and you shouldn't be expected to. The picture on the sites show a White short, but I got light yellow.

LIAR!

I have only been AWAY from my hometown for a week (yesterday) and i placed my order the day before I left! No pictures were available until the day they came out! They came out on the 20th of Oct in Australia, so. thats only just over a week ago........ *cough* 2 weeks eh? *cough*

What white short.... Sprawl has NO WHITE shorts, there is no page on the Sprawl website that says "WHITE SPRAWL (insert title of model here) "

dude..... -.-

It's not that I can't afford to pay for shipping, but I am upset at principle. I do not believe I am at fault, yet I will take a loss because an item i purchased was misrepresented.

1. I only bought the shorts after looking at the sprawl website. I did not not check the forums to see if they were a different color. I didn't know I had to do that - do you expect anyone who buys a piece of clothing to check some newsgroup first to make sure it looks like it does on the company's website?

2. I bought the shorts according the the picture and description on the sprawl website. It described an almost transparent short with the color close to white. The picture posted matched the verbal description, so I assumed both were accurate. Why would they post a picture that doesn't look like the real product. The least they should have done is put a disclaimer on the site saying the acutal product is darker than appears.

1. Say you had like looked at an item in a catalog, then drove to the store to buy them and the colour was different when you got there to buy the item, would you expect the company to pay for your fuel to get there?

2. Please quote the "description" and post the picture. I HIGHLY doubt the sprawl website would of said "almost transparent short with the colour close to white". I know this because I bought mine the day they came out...

I dont mean to victimize you, your oppinion is "just" in your mind ofcourse, but I have to disagree.

~Foz

 

[Fozzy1]

eh RobT! shit didnt see your post about the fuel! same thing bro =D geniuses think alike

~Foz

 

[Foolkiller]

When I got to the site it says Yellow Sprawl shorts. Not white, off white, not cream, not eggshell, not yellow-white... it says yellow. The entire reason the shorts have been released is because people wanted shorts like Buentello's yellow shorts. As such, you should have expected shorts like Buentello's. If you somehow read "yellow" as "white", you have some severe dyslexia.

Sprawl have admitted fault. They say on their site the shorts may be partially transparent and reduced the price accordingly. Also, no offense, but when was the last time you tried to take a high res picture of a brightly coloured translucent material flat against a white background? I'm not sure if you're familiar with the laws of physics, but translucent materials allow for whatever colour there is behind the material to affect the colour of the garment. Add to that they probably use a camera with a flash and you're going to end up with the momentary flash reflecting off of the white background or even just the possibility they tried to take a picture of them in a well lit area, it's not surprise their makeshift promo picture they rushed out to ensure they had the product on sale the day they promised they would was a little bright.

If you're not happy with them, return them. if you're cheap just seal it back up and "return to sender" them. But just because you didn't get something they don't have and now you don't want to drop the bills to get what you want done, does not mean it is Sprawl's fault. It's not like they are responsible for the post office putting charges on mailing packages so stop acting like it is.

 

[RobT]

eh RobT! shit didnt see your post about the fuel! same thing bro =D geniuses think alike

~Foz

Haha, it's true, and no problem!

 

[guitarsamurai]

Everyone misses the two key points to my argument. Just ask yourselvles this.

1. Was the item was misrepresented by the picture and description? does the picture match the product description and the real product?

2. If it was misrepresented, which side has the moral or professional obligation to make amends?


Those are my two points, everyone seems to get off topic and miss this.

RobT wrote:
"If you drove to town, bought something, then got home and realised it was the wrong item (or had some other problem): would you expect the store you bought it from to pay your fuel costs to drive back to town?"

No I wouldn't, but this is neither the same situation. In your example, I would have the opportunity to visually inspect the item BEFORE the purchase. Therefore the seller has no obligation to satisfy the customer as I could have refused the initial purchase. However, in this case, you have to PURCHASE the item BEFORE INSPECTION, therefore your purchase is SOLELY BASED ON THE ITEM DESCRIPTION, which was misleading. Since SPRAWL customers depend solely on the item description (because we can't drive down to a store to see them first) it is important that the description truely reflects the product.

 

[Bobby Jacobsen]

Like was written before the description says YELLOW. If you read that and expected off-white well then that really is not Sprawls fault.