reefraff:
I don't think that it's a given that Aqualung is voluntarily selling to unauthorized retailers - indeed, I don't think that this is the case at all. ]
The point I made was that a distributor whose territory is being infringed on by another entity is going to try and put a stop to it, when deemed significant. I think its safe to say all their sales are chosen and voluntary. A simple statement would clarify things, not required or mandatory. Until then, you believe what you want to believe, and I'll do the same. But I place this in the obfuscation column.
I don't think that the "distinction" between corporate identities is anywhere near as simple, or chicane, as you suggest, though I would ask: what other purpose would a distribution channel have, if not to maximize strategic objectives?
The point here was about a lack of a distinct and seperate competing entity. President of company A is VP of company B. You don't find these conflicts of interests in direct competitors. Then again this two have the same parent company. You're absolutely right its about maximizing strategic objective. In this case its a safe speculative bet to say there is one objective - not two.
You understand that consumers from locality to locality have different requirements, so let's move on to the salient point: I think that Aqualung (and the other manufacturers, for that matter) has adequately explained their local policy to you: if you don't purchase from an authorized dealer, you don't get free parts. You clearly understand this, so exactly what part of the message is obfuscatory or ambiguous? The fact that you may wish the policy was different doesn't mean that you're being cheated.
Apparently you missed the part about the free parts policy only being valid at "participating dealers". Got ya on that one. Not me - them. Read the fine print a little more carefully. Which leads me to exercise the following speculative skeptic viewpoint. When you buy the reg they all probably participate, when you go back a few years later after not having bought anything else from them, all of a sudden the same "authorized" dealer may well choose to not participate. Same issue with servicing authentic equipment brand. They make a fuzz about your interest in buying from authorized dealers and then when you go there for some of the benefits you may find the dealer is not contractually obligated to perform. Yes, it's generally stated in the fine print details while the advantages of buying from "Authorized Dealers" is embellished "This is our assurance that you will receive the proper pre-sale, point-of-sale, and post-sale assistance, and that only trained and certified divers will use our products". I would rightly, in my opinion, blame a company who places so much emphasis, and portends to care so much about the interests of consumers buying from authorized dealers. Different thought processes amd perpectives, thats all. We differ in opinion, again. LOL
So why are we having this discussion? If anyone deserves the label "unfair" it would seem to be the consumer that found a way to buy on the cheap through a back door and is upset when he can't find a way to get free service that he hasn't paid for
Because though not exclusive it is relevant. I do like to buy on the cheap - through the front door. I don't think anyone here, even though undoubtedly some consumers do, is trying to get anything they didn't pay for. That so many consumers are unclear about all this authorized and non authorized business, policy details, and the role of dealers, is certainly not all the consumers fault. They are not making the rules, - but are, having trouble understanding them.
