G
Guest
It seems most manufacturers and stores still don't consider a few dead pixels
at the time of product delivery to be a defective product. Yet most buyers
do.
1. Just what percentage of TVs and PC monitors have even one dead/stuck pixel?
Apparently that percentage is quite low. Yet no store (including online) is
willing to go far enough to do what I suggest (I have made the suggestion to
4 of them, and all of them eventually replied saying their existing policy is
in line with manufacturer and industry standards ... which of course is a bunch
of male bovine feces).
My suggestion:
Some stores should offer LCD TVs and LCD PC monitors with a price increment
or add on assurance that there will be absolutely zero dead pixels or they
(the store itself, not sending customers to the manufacturer) replace the
whole unit, plus cover the return and re-ship delivery costs, to ensure that
the customer gets a unit that has zero dead pixels (and stays that way for
a minimum period of 30 days after arrival of the non-defective unit).
If the percentage of units with even one dead pixel is less than 1%, then a
store can actually make a profit by charging a 3% premium for this kind of
service. That would make a $400 unit cost $412.
2. If you had a choice, for the exact model of LCD TV or LCD PC monitor you
wanted to buy, at one (reasonable) price for the unit with an industry
standard dead pixel replacement policy, and another at 3% higher price
with an absolute zero dead pixel policy, which would you choose?
I believe a large part of the market would choose the zero dead pixel policy,
especially for PC monitors or expensive large screen TVs. If that is true,
then a retailer offering such a policy could benefit not only from the premium
offering itself, but also from the market sector growth (until every retailer
discovered this).
The retailers who do get back defective units might be able to negotiate with
the manufacturers to refund their costs, or compensate for them. Or they may
choose to sell the items at a discount and boost their profit over that of
the zero dead pixel assurance plan itself.
3. How many people would be willing to buy a TV or PC monitor with a few dead
pixels (and a known number) at some discount based on how many pixels are
dead?
I think the answer to #3 would be "a few". It might be enough for retailers
to sell off the defective units as "disclosed defective" and not have to deal
with manufactures.
Or this might get more retailers to put more pressure on manufacturers to
improve their delivered yields. If the percentage of defective units are as
low as manufacturers say, it should not be that much of a price increase to
just toss the bad ones in the trash (or more likely, sell them off for parts
scavengers or other places).
at the time of product delivery to be a defective product. Yet most buyers
do.
1. Just what percentage of TVs and PC monitors have even one dead/stuck pixel?
Apparently that percentage is quite low. Yet no store (including online) is
willing to go far enough to do what I suggest (I have made the suggestion to
4 of them, and all of them eventually replied saying their existing policy is
in line with manufacturer and industry standards ... which of course is a bunch
of male bovine feces).
My suggestion:
Some stores should offer LCD TVs and LCD PC monitors with a price increment
or add on assurance that there will be absolutely zero dead pixels or they
(the store itself, not sending customers to the manufacturer) replace the
whole unit, plus cover the return and re-ship delivery costs, to ensure that
the customer gets a unit that has zero dead pixels (and stays that way for
a minimum period of 30 days after arrival of the non-defective unit).
If the percentage of units with even one dead pixel is less than 1%, then a
store can actually make a profit by charging a 3% premium for this kind of
service. That would make a $400 unit cost $412.
2. If you had a choice, for the exact model of LCD TV or LCD PC monitor you
wanted to buy, at one (reasonable) price for the unit with an industry
standard dead pixel replacement policy, and another at 3% higher price
with an absolute zero dead pixel policy, which would you choose?
I believe a large part of the market would choose the zero dead pixel policy,
especially for PC monitors or expensive large screen TVs. If that is true,
then a retailer offering such a policy could benefit not only from the premium
offering itself, but also from the market sector growth (until every retailer
discovered this).
The retailers who do get back defective units might be able to negotiate with
the manufacturers to refund their costs, or compensate for them. Or they may
choose to sell the items at a discount and boost their profit over that of
the zero dead pixel assurance plan itself.
3. How many people would be willing to buy a TV or PC monitor with a few dead
pixels (and a known number) at some discount based on how many pixels are
dead?
I think the answer to #3 would be "a few". It might be enough for retailers
to sell off the defective units as "disclosed defective" and not have to deal
with manufactures.
Or this might get more retailers to put more pressure on manufacturers to
improve their delivered yields. If the percentage of defective units are as
low as manufacturers say, it should not be that much of a price increase to
just toss the bad ones in the trash (or more likely, sell them off for parts
scavengers or other places).
