My experience with North Atlantic Scuba in Marshfield

[Skubaa_99]

DBG40,

You said you are a contractor and do good work etc.

For someone to take the time to slam NAS through emails and not bother to spell check your emails, I can only imagine the quality of your work. I wouldn't want you to punch list any job of mine if you can't take the time to proof read your emails.

But then again this is just a simple (couple) spelling mistake(s) that could have been corrected with the push of a few keys.

Sorry spelling is a quirk of mine, OH and now I must go to my therapy session.

 

[MSilvia]

DBG40,

You said you are a contractor and do good work etc.

For someone to take the time to slam NAS through emails and not bother to spell check your emails, I can only imagine the quality of your work. I wouldn't want you to punch list any job of mine if you can't take the time to proof read your emails.

But then again this is just a simple (couple) spelling mistake(s) that could have been corrected with the push of a few keys.

Sorry spelling is a quirk of mine, OH and now I must go to my therapy session.

I see you don't give a rat's patoot about checking the grammar in your posts, even while you criticize others for not proof reading for spelling. Where's my red pen?

I, for one, could care less how well a carpenter spells, cooks, dresses, dances, or cuts hair. When I hire a contractor, I'm just looking for someone who does the job well, on time, and on budget. The rest of it is meaningless. If I want quality spelling, I'll hire a writer or editor.

How do you spell "ball buster"?

 

[dbg40]

Fortunately, my clients are more concerned with the quality of my work as a carpenter, and not so much as a speller. And being treated as valued customers, which they are. Every one of them. Hitting a key to correct spelling is lazy and to me seems like cheating. Just a way to make someone look more intelligent than they are. English major I am not. Carpenter and business owner I am. Point is, I never seem to have a problem getting my point across.

 

[Skubaa_99]

Sorry it's not a matter of being lazy to find the easy way out of correcting your spelling. Nobody is going to know you used spell check to make corrections. But they know when you didn't use it which is a sign of being lazy.

Can't we all get along and enjoy our weekend of diving.

 

[Scott M]

The problem with me and spell check is I spell so bad the spell check can't figure out the words I am typing and this is what happens when I hit enter. :15:

 

[ScubaSarus]

Why is it that when people do not have a leg to stand on in an arguement, they attack one's spelling. Your employee hung up on a potential customer and your shop was the furthest thing from graceful. Let us not derail the subject or deviate from the thread's topic due to spelling; as the conotation is well understood.

Do you have the capability to do what the customer asked?

Was he hung up on because he didn't initially put money in your pockets?

What was the reason then?

It would be nice to have a proper explanation besides attacking someone spelling.

I could understand if he was asking to fix a brand new LP bought suit that needed fitting to his gloves.

 

[SkuaSeptember]

I agree completely with everything you've said. Those actions are what a fair-minded constructive person would do.

This kind of one-sided indictment bothers me enough that I just called the shop to alert them to this situation in case they want to address the accusations in this thread directly.

It's clear to me from the positive comments of long-term customers of North Atlantic Scuba that they don't deserve to be treated this way on the internet.

There are much better ways to handle a personal slight.

Please note that I have no affiliation or connection with North Atlantic Scuba other than my recent contact to alert them.

Dave C

A few of thoughts:
1. The onus should not be on the customer to correct the employer's hiring decision.
2. This is an open forum and NAS has had 4 1/2 days to respond if they are savvy enough to monitor the various boards or most of a full business day to respond to Matt from when you notified them.
3. I hope NAS appreciates what a loyal customer you are!
4. It's a shame that they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to turn Matt into a loyal customer.
5. Matt does have a business of his own and is very customer service oriented!

 

[SadiesMom]

DBG40,

You said you are a contractor and do good work etc.

For someone to take the time to slam NAS through emails and not bother to spell check your emails, I can only imagine the quality of your work. I wouldn't want you to punch list any job of mine if you can't take the time to proof read your emails.

But then again this is just a simple (couple) spelling mistake(s) that could have been corrected with the push of a few keys.

Sorry spelling is a quirk of mine, OH and now I must go to my therapy session.

Oh, for God's sake! Now *there's* a valuable contribution to the subject - you attack DBG for his spelling???? That's supposed to be making a valid point?

If you want to get picky, we can play that game with your post, too. These aren't "emails" - they're posts to a message board.

I grew up with an English teacher for a mother and spelling and grammar are things I look for as well. But I apply that standard to my own writing and that of professionals. Beyond that, I don't judge or criticize - particularly on message boards (unless, of course, I feel the need to point out hypocrisy when I see it).

If you are associated with NAS, you just handled the issue in just about the worst possible way. If you're not, you didn't do them any favors.

SadiesMom

 

[dave4868]

A few of thoughts:
1. The onus should not be on the customer to correct the employer's hiring decision.
2. This is an open forum and NAS has had 4 1/2 days to respond if they are savvy enough to monitor the various boards or most of a full business day to respond to Matt from when you notified them.
3. I hope NAS appreciates what a loyal customer you are!
4. It's a shame that they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to turn Matt into a loyal customer.
5. Matt does have a business of his own and is very customer service oriented!

First, let me repeat, I am not affiliated in any way with the shop being attacked. I am not a customer of the shop. I have no bias or alliance regarding this alleged incident.

My comments are simply motivated to address the unfairness of accepting at face value such a one-sided internet report that appears intended to cause harm to people.

I understand that's acceptable to some people, but let's call it what it is: "getting even". Personally, I find "getting even" is a waste of time and energy....and believe me, I'm tempted at times, too!

So far, we've only heard one version of events and there could easily be another version that puts this into a completely different light.

You've laid out some interesting points, unfortunately many of them do not pertain to anything I've said, although you've lumped them all as an apparent response to my quote.

Nevertheless, here's my perspective on each point, just based on the one side we've heard from the OP.

1. The onus should not be on the customer to correct the employer's hiring decision.

1. I'm suggesting there's an onus on a customer to give a shop owner/manager a fair chance before harming them on the internet after an alleged incident with one of their employees. That chance wasn't given by the OP. Remember, we're talking about people here, not just a "shop".

This simply appears to be an attempt by the OP to cause financial harm to people running a well-respected business after he had a minor issue of being declined service and after a perceived personal slight from one of their employees.

Since the OP reports his phone call with the shop employee ended after "words" were exchanged and the other person hung up on him, it brings into question how each party handled themselves. People have limits. People sometimes overreact. Sometimes customers are unreasonably demanding or abusive. Sometimes customer service falls apart as a result. Sometimes people post before they've calmed down.... I've done that, for sure! Thankfully, being long-winded gives me time to get things into better perspective.....

Here, we really only have part of the story, but apparently the OP felt strongly enough about the whole issue to try to harm the owners of this business without first bothering to get their input:

David [DavidInNH] - that is a good and fair point, the manager should have the opportunity to make it right. At this point I'm not willing to invest the time and effort to try to figure out a time when the manager would be there, it's now worth it to me to make the drive to NE Scuba.

Why didn't he give the owner/manager a fair chance before trying to harm him? Doesn't the manager/owner deserve a call?

What was the OP's main motivation for his post? Performance of a public service? Revenge for a personal slight? I don't know, but the disproportionate response of the OP makes me wonder.

If it was to perform a public service, could we agree it's incomplete and probably misleading and unfair without first obtaining the owner/manager's input?

Was this a warning to protect the public from suffering a similar "hell of an experience" with this shop? After all, this really appears to have been a minor and probably personal problem of the customer and/or of the employee, doesn't it?

From the testimonials, this appears to be not characteristic of the shop. Doesn't the OP's posting unfairly smear the reputation of the shop and the people who own/run the shop by basing it on one minor incident or policy disagreement? Seems like an over-reaction to me, but I tend to be pretty easy going....

Since you've quoted me, let me say that I had not implied any onus on the customer to do anything other than follow the suggestions of the other poster, DavidInNH, that is, to give the manager of the shop a chance to rectify or clarify the situation.

That would be a reasonable, constructive and fair response, unlike the OP's one-sided posting, in my opinion.

2. This is an open forum and NAS has had 4 1/2 days to respond if they are savvy enough to monitor the various boards or most of a full business day to respond to Matt from when you notified them.

2. I would hope dive shop owners have better things to do than monitor and respond to internet chatter, even when the chatter maligns their reputation. How many forums would you suggest a shop monitor and how much time should they devote to it to be considered "savvy enough"? A strange concept really....

Should they respond once they've been made aware of an internet allegation? I can see how responding could be viewed as a total waste of time and a no-win situation for them, even if they are totally in the right. Just look at the unfairness of the process here and how people jump to conclusions before having all the facts. It could be a veritable "black hole" of flawed circular logic....

A non-response from a dive shop doesn't tell us anything about the shop (except maybe that they're busy serving lots of happy customers), but the OP's attempt to harm a shop over a minor issue and personal slight possibly tells us a great deal.

3. I hope NAS appreciates what a loyal customer you are!

3. I have no affiliation with them and stated that clearly.

Are you simply mistaken or did you think you discovered my secret bias?

I'm loyal to treating people fairly.

4. It's a shame that they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to turn Matt into a loyal customer.

4. I agree completely.

Maybe they tried. Maybe the call got off on the wrong foot and went down hill quickly. People react to people and sometimes get a "hair-across". Who was to blame? We certainly don't know in this case, do we?

It is a shame if one employee didn't handle the phone call well, regardless of how the customer may have handled himself.

It's also a shame if the customer unfairly sought revenge by trying to harm the apparently outstanding reputation of a shop over a service policy disagreement or a personal slight.

Where's the sense of balance here?

The real shame is that there may actually be undeserved harm done to this shop based on a one-sided report of such minor problems. It's also a shame that people piled-on and came to conclusions based on such minimal and possibly skewed evidence.

There's certainly no real public service involved in this thread.

In fact, some people have posted their agreement with the alleged position of the shop not to service a problem of mating two different products, only one of which they carry. I can see their point, too.

Someone stated it could quickly become a no-win situation for the shop to attempt to fix this OP's problem with his suit/glove combination. Remember the Pottery Shop Rules: "You break it, you own it". I can see their point.

Sometimes a customer telegraphs that they will be unreasonably demanding and still be unhappy no matter what you do. Was that the case here? I don't know. Maybe not, but something led this employee to hang up on the OP. "Words" were exchanged. What transpired to lead to that? We don't know, do we?

Personally, I tend to agree with your premise that any opportunity to serve a customer is a good chance to turn them into a loyal customer.

That's true, unless the customer is totally unreasonable, of course. Then you have to cut some of them loose, in my opinion.

Questions arise about the OP's handling of himself on that call. He's stated:

The closest shop to me that sells Diving Concepts is North Atlantic Scuba. I called today to talk about the problem and if they can do a leak test and help me fix the problem. The first question out of the mouth of this rep was "did you buy the suit or gloves from us". I explained I had not, his next comment was, "you should return to the shop where you bought them". I asked to speak to the manager and he refused. We exchanged some words and he hung up.

So what happened here? What does it mean "we exchanged some words"? Calling each other names maybe? How'd it get to that? Followed by the employee hanging up on the OP who subsequently tries to get even on the internet by harming the people who run the shop? In the guise of public service?....

5. Matt does have a business of his own and is very customer service oriented!

Let me just say that this comment and and some others you made do not refer to anything I've said.

I just disagree with the OP's choice to try to harm people over a minor policy issue and possibly a personal slight. He could have chosen several other ways to deal with these issues that would have been far more constructive and fair.

That's just my humble opinion based on incomplete information....

Dave C

 

[matt_unique]

Lot's of interesting speculation Dave C. Your choice of words is also interesting: "...minor issue of being declined service and after a perceived personal slight".

If I were not involved I too would wonder about the "other side of the story". So, it means each reader needs to decide what they believe.

The phone call lasted about 120 seconds. I called a product and service provider (NAS), the kid on the phone told me to take my business elsewhere and would not let me speak to a manager.

NAS is the only shop in MA where I experienced this kind of bad customer service. As do many others, I have about $8000 in dive gear and 12 scuba certifications. Every single penny of that went to LDS's here in MA, and the first $1500 or so went to NAS when I first lived on the South Shore.

Many choose this community to share good and bad experiences with their friends (real and virtual). I do the same and I appreciate they do the same for me. It seems you prefer members keep negative experiences to themselves and take additional actions to give the provider additional opportunities to offer better customer service. That's your choice.