Good,
but it could be better.
It's
been a long, long time since I've had to send a piece of equipment
into Nikon for repair. Recently, my luck ran out--the original
D70 I purchased had an internal flash unit that never functioned
(I had
to borrow D70s to finish that section of my eBook, if you're curious).
Due to my travel and shooting schedule, it wasn't until late June
that I had a chance to send the camera in to be fixed. Let's look
at an annotated chronology first:
- Friday
6/18. Camera is sent FedEx overnight from PA to Melville, NY.
- Monday
6/21. Camera is signed for and received by NikonUSA. As
attested to by FedEx email receipt.
- Tuesday
6/22. Camera is logged into Nikon's system and the "estimate
approved." NPS members agree to approve estimates
in advance up to a certain amount. I'm using Nikon's terminology
here,
as the camera was accepted under warranty and thus the eventual
bill would be zero; still, they use "estimate approved" to
indicate a camera is ready to be repaired. However, on this
particular date I have no way of knowing any of this, as the
only way
to know
what's
happening
in NikonUSA's system is to have a service order number. Nikon
wonders why so many people call them about the status of their
repair? It's because the customer is essentially blind until
they receive their letter from Nikon. For non-NPS customers,
this becomes a bit more important, as unless the problem is
completely a warranty repair, you'll have to at some point
approve the estimate. If you're not paying attention to the
database, you'll almost certainly delay your repairs.
- Saturday
6/26. US mail brings a printed copy of the service order to
me. The repair code is "B2 Service Repair Rank B2." I
attempted to log into Nikon's online database to find out the
status
of
the
repair
only to
find
that their
entire
Web site is down. And what the heck is B2 (more on that in
a bit)?
- Sunday
6/27. I finally manage to log into the Web site. The information
there simply corresponds to what I already know: "6/22
Estimate Accepted." As I noted, NPS members accept
estimates automatically up to a certain amount, and this was
also printed on the service order I received in the mail.
And
then we wait.
- Monday
6/28, still "estimate approved."
- Tuesday
6/29, still "estimate approved."
- Wednesday
6/30, still "estimate approved."
- Thursday
7/1, still "estimate approved." Turns out this
is a pretty common situation, and one that Nikon needs to fix
in two ways. First, they simply need to be a bit faster at
fixing equipment (remember, I'm a member of NPS, so in theory,
get expedited repair; though see below for more on that). People
are losing jobs or memories when cameras sit awaiting
repair.
But more
important,
the current scenario essentially guarantees that customers
will have escalating frustration. What they see is inactivity,
and the longer it goes on, the more furious they get. I'm pretty
sure that Nikon knows what the queue and parts situation is
like, so they could say "estimate approved, estimated
two-week turnaround." Yes,
that can be frustrating, too, but information is always perceived
better than lack of information, and given the popularity of
this new camera, I'm willing to give Nikon the benefit of the
doubt. This also intersects with another suggestion I've had
for some time: NikonUSA needs an ombudsman who can intercede
on the part of the customer in special cases. Consider this:
you bought a new camera a month before a big trip so you'd
have time to learn how to use
it, discovered it had a warranty failure, sent it in
to Nikon for repair, then didn't get it back in time for the
big,
once-in-a-lifetime trip. Think you'll buy Nikon equipment
again? Not bloody likely, is it? An ombudsman correctly
empowered and provisioned would have the ability to turn those "lost
forever customers" into "forever loyal customers" who
spread good words about the service they received (see right
hand column).
- Tuesday
7/6, the camera shows up on my doorstep. Hmm. My notes
indicate that I checked status on 7/2 and it still showed the
same in the online database. I do note that the paperwork received
with the camera indicate that it was completed very late on
the 1st. But the changes in the online database are somewhat
subtle and easy to misread. For example, even after I received
the camera back, when I look up the service order number the status
says "Bill" (which the info tag explains means "The order has
been confirmed," which doesn't tell me a lot; moreover, the
info tag also notes there is a category called "Shipped" for
order status, so why isn't that what shows on my service order? It obviously shipped, since I have the camera back).
At the bottom of the status page is a "This order has been
shipped,"
but
this isn't where I'd be looking to see what the current situation
is. But this brings up a last point: Nikon's system is all
reactive, and not at all proactive. They have my email address
(and if they implement my suggestions below, they could get
it for everyone). Thus, they simply could auto-trigger an email
every time the status changes. It would also help if there
was some consistency in the "status" field with the
actual status.
[A
bit of an aside, as this article is about process, not function:
the camera came back fixed and with updated firmware (not
noted on
the service
order).
It
was
very
obviously
cleaned
(the viewfinder grime was gone). It was packaged well and returned
via overnight service. So in terms of the actual service,
Nikon did exactly as I would expect them to do. I've never actually
had any fault with them on this, and my experience seems to match
that of other's who've had to have equipment repaired: Nikon
fixes things right. I don't think that part of Nikon's service
is broken in any way, and I hope they retain that high standard
forever.] I
mentioned NPS before. NPS is Nikon's service for professionals
who make their living from photography. Most NPS members believe
that they always get expedited service on anything they send
in. But from the Nikon paperwork: "NPS
expedited repair is offered only to current members of Nikon
Professional
Services. We take every step to give you the best quality service
in the shortest amount of time possible." Further down this
form is a slightly cryptic "NPS expedited repair is available
for current Nikon SLR Professional equipment. While most pros
own
a Nikon Consumer Camera, we do not consider them 'Professional'
equipment'." Oh-oh. So Nikon will only treat pros as pros
if they buy the right stuff, eh? I think that statement either
needs rethinking or clarification. I know an awful lot of pros
using D70's and D100's. Are those consumer cameras? Bottom line:
Nikon needs to clarify to professionals exactly what equipment
is and isn't covered by the service. [Another
aside: NPS is a free service, but a vague one. I'd much rather
have it be a paid service and a specified one. I'd pay US$100
a year to have very specific response and a real loaner pool
for emergencies. So would virtually every pro I've talked to.] Regardless
of whether the D70 qualifies as a professional SLR or a consumer
camera, let's look at this case as if I were simply a casual
consumer having a problem. In no particular order:
- The
lack of quick initial feedback is poor customer service.
Had I not requested to be notified by FedEx of delivery receipt,
I would
have sent
my D70 off and not heard a thing about it for 8 days. That's
not what I'd call customer service. Solution: Nikon
needs to have an automated up-front repair request system.
Go to their Web site, pick the Repair Request form, fill in
information about the product, serial number, problem encountered,
and your contact
info.
In
return you
get a service order number immediately assigned and a form
in your Web browser to print and send in with the camera. (If
you were to look up the service order on the automated Web
site at this point, you'd see "MM/YYYY Repair Requested;
Equipment not yet received.") Not only does an up-front
system like this help with the feedback situation,
but it means that every piece of equipment comes into Nikon
with the same consistent set of information, that Nikon can
advise the customer directly of where to send the product,
what to
send
with it, and what to expect in coming steps.
- Cryptic
codes just puzzle consumers and create interesting rumors. I
know that Nikon uses a fixed set of codes for their repair
system. I get emails all the time from people
asking me to interpret what the codes and descriptions actually
mean. I wish that I could, but I can't. Apparently Nikon doesn't
want anyone to know what they actually fixed on your camera,
which isn't exactly a confidence-inspiring practice, is it?
Back in the early days of the D1, for example, some people
received their cameras back with an extra line in the service
description referring to an oscillator part being replaced.
This was the "quiet" patterned noise fix that Nikon
made to replace a defective part in a handful of cameras. But
they apparently only did this
for cameras that came in for other repairs--the equivalent
to the automotive industry's use of non-public technical service
bulletins (my 2001 Suburu, for example, has been subject to
16 such TSBs, one of which my dealer won't acknowledge). So
a logical conclusion that people get from the cryptic codes
is that Nikon is trying to hide something, and then the rumors
start flying. That D1 problem didn't effect every camera,
for example, but the fact that Nikon never really publicly
acknowledged that a problem existed, the rumors started flying
that every D1
required that part fix. Not true, but in the face of no information
from Nikon, that rumor persists today. Solution: publish
what's covered by the various codes and publish TSBs. This
says you stand behind your equipment.
- Unexpected
fixes. There's
a related issue to #2. "We repair all owner specified
problems and all DIAGNOSED problems in
order to return the equipment to factory specifications."
You send in your camera under warranty to have a control
that isn't working fixed. Nikon sends you a repair estimate
for
"major
damage--customer abuse"
to the lens mount that isn't covered by warranty. What
happened is that when Nikon put the camera through their
full diagnostic
test
set, they found other problems with it. Your choices are
to have them do nothing at all and send it back to you,
or to pay for the additional lens mount work. This isn't
as
bad
as
it sounds
for the consumer, by the way. In the US, the fact that
Nikon
returns equipment to "factory specifications" has
positive warranty implications for consumers, and I've
never heard
of a case where Nikon was being arbitrary and trying to pick
up a few quick repair bucks. But it's still a shock. Even
when all of the repair is covered
under
warranty,
the customer is still perplexed by "Major Repair" when
it's listed
in addition to the things they asked to be fixed. Solution: Again,
publish
what the codes mean (and all the types of things covered
under a code), plus publish TSBs for real issues that are
going to be corrected if an item comes in for repair. I
know Nikon was afraid they'd get every D1 back for repair
if they
acknowledged that some needed a new oscillator, but there
were ways around that problem, and they all involve being more open
about information, not less. I heard from several D1 users
who sent their D1's in for "repair" for very
minor things in
hopes of getting a new oscillator. One did, two didn't.
None of those people would have sent in their cameras without
the rumors that swirled around the product.
- Too
reactive; no proactive. Where
do you send your equipment for repair? What do you send with
it? What can you expect when you do? At every stage of the
process, Nikon is reactive. Most people have to call Nikon
service to kick off the process. That phone number typically
isn't in the manual, there's no mention of process in the
Troubleshooting section of the manual, and even when you
figure it all out (in the US, 1-800-645-6678, which happens
to be 1-800-NIKON-SV) many people either don't hear everything
they're told or sometime's Nikon doesn't tell 'em. In the
US you need to return the item with the proof of warranty
sheet/card and usually a copy of the bill of sale; you should
also strip the camera of accessories like the LCD cover,
battery, storage card, eyecup, strap, basically everything
except the body cap, otherwise you might not get them back
(it's sort of like the inventory of someone going to prison;
everything into the envelope, and if you're lucky no one
loses the envelope or anything in it while you're "in
the shop".). None of this is spelled out anywhere, nor
would you even know about the on-line service order lookup
at this
point. The online database should be a reassuring aspect
of service, so why Nikon doesn't tell you about it up front,
I don't
know. Solution: Make everything
proactive. Publicize the process and steps (the steps are
in my D70, D100, and D2h Guides, and I'll
be adding it to my other books as I update them). Collect
enough information up front so that Nikon can proactively
email you as status changes. Be forthcoming about what's
needed from the customer and what the customer can expect.
Curiously,
as I was working on this article an article appeared in Fortune about how to tell if a company was customer centric or not ("5
Rules for Finding the Next Dell," July 12, 2004, page 103). Let's
look at their five points and see how Nikon fares: 1. Is
the company looking for ways to take care of you? On the product side, Nikon
mostly does a good job. On the "experience" side, which includes
software, service, and support,
the report
is less
good. Indeed, the more something involves having to interact with
a customer, the worse Nikon does. 2. Does
the company know its customers well enough to differentiate
between them? I'd have to say no to this; we have no real
evidence that Nikon tries to understand its customers. If they
did, someone at Nikon would be asking me about my database, as
I have the names and addresses of more Nikon users than most organizations
other than Nikon itself. [My current privacy policy says I don't share
this info, by the way.] 3. Is
someone accountable for you as a customer? A big no here.
If you had a complaint about a Nikon product or support issue,
where would that go? Who would you write? Who would you call? What
would you expect that person to do? The answers are: don't know,
don't know, don't know, and nothing. 4. Is
the company managed for shareholder value? I think this is a yes, actually,
though I'd insert the modifier "long-term" before shareholder
value. 5. Is
the company testing new customer offers and learning from the
results? Another
big no. Nikon's pretty set in their ways when
it comes to how products are created and distributed. Moreover,
there's the "subsidiary of a Japanese company" thing
that gets in the way of NikonUSA and other wholly owned distributors
getting
too creative in this respect. |
