Not happy with Adorama

I recently bought a new camera and wanted to sell my Canon Rebel XT body. I
sent an email to the Adorama Used Camera Dept. and KEH. Adorama estimated it
was worth $200, KEH estimated $170. Adorama claimed they offered 70% of the
used sales price.

After mailing it to Adorama (at least they do pay the shipping cost), they
offered me $105, saying the "camera prices had dropped recently". When I
mentioned KEH's estimate, he said he would check to see if they could match
it. I looked on Adorama's used camera website and they had my camera model,
with the 18-55mm kit lens, listed for $324 and $409 depending on the
condition, The $324 camera was rated as E (some wear). My camera was in
better shape than that. The kit lens is worth about $50 used, making the
camera body value range from $274-359. 70% of that value would be $192-251.
And they graciously offered me $105!

They did come back and match KEH's $170 price (big surprise).

I know, I should have sold it on Craigslist or eBay.

Tom

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:21:57 -0700, Tom from WI wrote:

I recently bought a new camera and wanted to sell my Canon Rebel XT body. I
sent an email to the Adorama Used Camera Dept. and KEH. Adorama estimated it
was worth $200, KEH estimated $170. Adorama claimed they offered 70% of the
used sales price.

After mailing it to Adorama (at least they do pay the shipping cost), they
offered me $105, saying the "camera prices had dropped recently". When I
mentioned KEH's estimate, he said he would check to see if they could match
it. I looked on Adorama's used camera website and they had my camera model,
with the 18-55mm kit lens, listed for $324 and $409 depending on the
condition, The $324 camera was rated as E (some wear). My camera was in
better shape than that. The kit lens is worth about $50 used, making the
camera body value range from $274-359. 70% of that value would be $192-251.
And they graciously offered me $105!

They did come back and match KEH's $170 price (big surprise).

I know, I should have sold it on Craigslist or eBay.

Tom

Times are tough.

That's unfortunate. I have had several dealings with Adorama - both
buying and selling - and never had a problem. I know that prices for
used equipment has dropped dramatically lately. The prices are also
based upon how many of the cameras/lenses they have in stock and what
they feel they can get for them. (And no - I don't work for them.)

"Tom from WI" wrote in message
...
I recently bought a new camera and wanted to sell my Canon Rebel XT body. I
sent an email to the Adorama Used Camera Dept. and KEH. Adorama estimated
it was worth $200, KEH estimated $170. Adorama claimed they offered 70% of
the used sales price.

After mailing it to Adorama (at least they do pay the shipping cost), they
offered me $105, saying the "camera prices had dropped recently". When I
mentioned KEH's estimate, he said he would check to see if they could
match it. I looked on Adorama's used camera website and they had my camera
model, with the 18-55mm kit lens, listed for $324 and $409 depending on
the condition, The $324 camera was rated as E (some wear). My camera was
in better shape than that. The kit lens is worth about $50 used, making
the camera body value range from $274-359. 70% of that value would be
$192-251. And they graciously offered me $105!

They did come back and match KEH's $170 price (big surprise).

I know, I should have sold it on Craigslist or eBay.

It's always better to sell on eBay (I know little about Craigslist, have
never done business through them). But of course selling to Adorama or KEH
saves you all that bother, making up the ad and photos etc., and the listing
and final fees, and the waiting, the uncertainty, and possible problems with
a buyer.

I'm not surprised at Adorama's offer and don't think it's so bad. After all,
they probably have tons of unsold used cameras, most if not all of which are
depreciating further while they're sitting there. When I last sold my used
cameras to dealers (decades ago), I think the rule was they'd pay about
one-third of what they expected to sell them for. And camera prices were
much more stable then than they are now.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Tom from WI" wrote in message
...
I recently bought a new camera and wanted to sell my Canon Rebel XT body.
I sent an email to the Adorama Used Camera Dept. and KEH. Adorama
estimated it was worth $200, KEH estimated $170. Adorama claimed they
offered 70% of the used sales price.

After mailing it to Adorama (at least they do pay the shipping cost),
they offered me $105, saying the "camera prices had dropped recently".
When I mentioned KEH's estimate, he said he would check to see if they
could match it. I looked on Adorama's used camera website and they had my
camera model, with the 18-55mm kit lens, listed for $324 and $409
depending on the condition, The $324 camera was rated as E (some wear).
My camera was in better shape than that. The kit lens is worth about $50
used, making the camera body value range from $274-359. 70% of that value
would be $192-251. And they graciously offered me $105!

They did come back and match KEH's $170 price (big surprise).

I know, I should have sold it on Craigslist or eBay.

It's always better to sell on eBay (I know little about Craigslist, have
never done business through them). But of course selling to Adorama or KEH
saves you all that bother, making up the ad and photos etc., and the
listing and final fees, and the waiting, the uncertainty, and possible
problems with a buyer.

I'm not surprised at Adorama's offer and don't think it's so bad. After
all, they probably have tons of unsold used cameras, most if not all of
which are depreciating further while they're sitting there. When I last
sold my used cameras to dealers (decades ago), I think the rule was they'd
pay about one-third of what they expected to sell them for. And camera
prices were much more stable then than they are now.
The person I was dealing at Adorama stated at least six times how Adorama
paid 70% of what they sold them for. I don't how many they had to sell, but
they only had two on their website and KEH also only had two. Who knows if
they had more on their shelves. If they really offer 30%, then they
shouldn't repeat their 70% mantra so often.
Tom

"Tom from WI" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Tom from WI" wrote in message
...
I recently bought a new camera and wanted to sell my Canon Rebel XT body.
I sent an email to the Adorama Used Camera Dept. and KEH. Adorama
estimated it was worth $200, KEH estimated $170. Adorama claimed they
offered 70% of the used sales price.

After mailing it to Adorama (at least they do pay the shipping cost),
they offered me $105, saying the "camera prices had dropped recently".
When I mentioned KEH's estimate, he said he would check to see if they
could match it. I looked on Adorama's used camera website and they had
my camera model, with the 18-55mm kit lens, listed for $324 and $409
depending on the condition, The $324 camera was rated as E (some wear).
My camera was in better shape than that. The kit lens is worth about $50
used, making the camera body value range from $274-359. 70% of that
value would be $192-251. And they graciously offered me $105!

They did come back and match KEH's $170 price (big surprise).

I know, I should have sold it on Craigslist or eBay.

It's always better to sell on eBay (I know little about Craigslist, have
never done business through them). But of course selling to Adorama or
KEH saves you all that bother, making up the ad and photos etc., and the
listing and final fees, and the waiting, the uncertainty, and possible
problems with a buyer.

I'm not surprised at Adorama's offer and don't think it's so bad. After
all, they probably have tons of unsold used cameras, most if not all of
which are depreciating further while they're sitting there. When I last
sold my used cameras to dealers (decades ago), I think the rule was
they'd pay about one-third of what they expected to sell them for. And
camera prices were much more stable then than they are now.
The person I was dealing at Adorama stated at least six times how Adorama
paid 70% of what they sold them for. I don't how many they had to sell,
but they only had two on their website and KEH also only had two. Who
knows if they had more on their shelves. If they really offer 30%, then
they shouldn't repeat their 70% mantra so often.

I agree with that, of course. I don't really know anything about the retail
used camera business, but 70% seems high to me. Many years ago a dealer told
me used cameras were "a drug on the market," but of course he may have been
saying that partly because I was selling him one of my used cameras. It's
also probably true that a small camera store like his couldn't move its used
stock anywhere near as fast as a big-city store and online dealer can. There
wasn't any online selling at all then -- it was decades ago.

"Helen Oster" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 9:21 pm, "Tom from WI" wrote:
I recently bought a new camera and wanted to sell my Canon Rebel XT body.
I
sent an email to the Adorama Used Camera Dept. and KEH. Adorama estimated
it
was worth $200, KEH estimated $170. Adorama claimed they offered 70% of
the
used sales price.

After mailing it to Adorama (at least they do pay the shipping cost), they
offered me $105, saying the "camera prices had dropped recently". When I
mentioned KEH's estimate, he said he would check to see if they could
match
it. I looked on Adorama's used camera website and they had my camera
model,
with the 18-55mm kit lens, listed for $324 and $409 depending on the
condition, The $324 camera was rated as E (some wear). My camera was in
better shape than that. The kit lens is worth about $50 used, making the
camera body value range from $274-359. 70% of that value would be
$192-251.
And they graciously offered me $105!

They did come back and match KEH's $170 price (big surprise).

I know, I should have sold it on Craigslist or eBay.

Tom

Dear Tom

Firstly, I would like to offer a deep apology for the inconvenience
that was caused to you by our failure to take adequate care in serving
you. From the description of your experience there appears to have
been a lapse in judgment by the the representative in the used
department who served you.

Please could you contact me directly with a little more information by
forwarding either any emails you received from the representative or
the quote number you were given, and I will address this immediately.

Again, my apologies, and I do look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador


www.adorama.com

I have sent you an email.
Tom

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:27:05 -0400, "Larry Thong"
wrote:

Helen Oster wrote:

Firstly, I would like to offer a deep apology for the inconvenience
that was caused to you by our failure to take adequate care in serving
you. From the description of your experience there appears to have
been a lapse in judgment by the the representative in the used
department who served you.

Please could you contact me directly with a little more information by
forwarding either any emails you received from the representative or
the quote number you were given, and I will address this immediately.

Again, my apologies, and I do look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

Funny how the "Customer Service Ambassador" comes out of the woodwork when
there's a publicly posted complaint about Adorama's business practices.
This practice of public apology is commonplace with politician and criminals
such as Michael Vick that only apologize when they get busted. Your
apologies only mean you're sorry you got caught. What about the other souls
that didn't complain in public? A hint, instead of trolling the internet
for complaints, simply adjust your business practices and level of ethics so
that damage control and false apologies wouldn't be needed.



This must be the end-of-the-world day that all psychotics keep going on
about, because I actually agree with something that this Larry photo-troll
has finally said.

Though you forgot to add their blatant "chance to spam usenet" too. One of
the few ways that they can not too cleanly squeak around that issue, thinly
veil it as a public apology. You don't see some rep of Nikon, Canon, or any
other company come through here correcting all complaints or apologizing.
(Hell, they'd have to hire all new departments just to keep up with the
posts.) This is why usenet works, that's why corporate and commercial use
is 100% disallowed. A chance for everyone in the world to air their
grievances about companies without some fool from that company doling out
even more misdirection and misinformation, with their eventual legal
threats to shut up any complainers.

I used to buy quite a few things from Adorama, even a GPS this year. But
now seeing how their "Ambassador" (what a ****ingly pretentious title, eh?)
comes into usenet to spam the place under the guise of "apologies" I'll
have to reconsider where I might buy from in the future. Not to mention
that their ever increasing prices are no longer a compelling reason to go
there anymore. I guess this "customer service ambassador" didn't consider
this "spam not" issue. That she was doing more harm than good by trying to
publicly resolve the issue on usenet.

Why ... if I was more suspicious, or a conspiracy-buff, I might even think
that these mild complaints are posted every few months by their own staff,
to get a chance to spam usenet and look like the good-guys on the block. I
even thought that the first time I saw one of these "Helen Apology
Threads". On rethinking it this Helen-ambassador sure seems quick to (as
you said) come out of the woodwork every time there's one of these minor
complaints. It's almost as if Helen knows that someone is going to post a
complaint because she's so quick to respond. Just waiting for someone that
they emailed to post their contrived complaint. As if it's a scripted or
pre-planned event. Could this be a usenet marketing ploy invented by their
own staff? Didn't this happen on a three-day weekend the last time too?
Something's starting to smell like decomposing seafood--if I was
suspicious, or a conspiracy-buff, that is.

Go ahead Helen, THE AMBASSADOR (that's too funny), "apologize" again for
your "chance to spam" practices. Watch it do even more harm. A nice little
catch-22 for you to ponder. Is this "ambassador" going to bite on it? If
she does, will this be another huge bite out of their sales for doing so?
This truly does "bite" doesn't it. :-)

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:55:31 -0700 (PDT), Helen Oster
wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:15*am, Bob Larter wrote:
Spam Spotter wrote:
This must be the end-of-the-world day that all psychotics keep going on
about, because I actually agree with something that this Larry photo-troll
has finally said.

You should know better.

Though you forgot to add their blatant "chance to spam usenet" too.

Responding on-topic to a post about them is NOT spamming.

*This is why usenet works, that's why corporate and commercial use

is 100% disallowed.

'Disallowed'? WTF are you talking about? - There's no such rule for
Usenet, or for this group.


http://helenoster.spammer.com/2009/0...conundrum.html

Helen Oster
Spamoram Camera Customer Service Ambassador

www.spamorama.com


http://www.newsdemon.com/usenet_term_spam.php

"Spam: Unsolicited commercial advertising. Spamming is against the TOS of
almost every Usenet Access Provider. "