This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this needs internationalising Secretlondon 20:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
From VfD:
end moved discussion
The rewrite looks like it was made by Circuit City or CompUSA, those who benefit greatly from EW's. I liked the previous version better, but I'm biased. Most consumer advocate groups claim extended warranties are worthless except for a very few items. The rewrite makes it sound like only a few consumer groups decry them as a waste of money. The rewrite goes onto justify EW's as necessary for retailers to stay in business with Internet retailers cutting into their business. On the whole, it is a very POV rewrite. Compare this version to the current version. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Andrew G Scott (user:AScott)
Added the following:
"An extended warranty is coverage for electrical or mechanical breakdown. It does not cover peripheral items, wear and tear, damage by computer viruses, re-gassing, normal maintenance, accidental damage, or any consequential loss. The indemnity is to cover the cost of repair and may include replacement if deemed uneconomic for repair. It is important for consumers to read and understand the terms and conditions offered at the point of sale. The value of extended warranties lies behind the organization promoting and selling them. Most of the major retailers employ specialist administrators to manage the claims and to ensure the product is priced on a sustainable basis. An essential part of this is to determine the appropriate provisions on the balance sheet to reserve for future claims. Similarly, the income must be earned over the period of cover. Companies that have been around for several years will usually have the systems and data in place with which to do this. Less reputable organizations may not adequacy price their extended warranties and may therefore have insufficient funds to provide for future claims costs."
Remove the following: "An extended warranty is pitched like an "insurance policy" in case the product breaks down after the manufacturer’s standard warranty period. It promises more protection. However, in some cases, extended warranties might not be worthwhile.
Extended warranties are something of a cash cow for those who offer them. Few items with extended warranties ever need replacing or repairing and, if they ever do, many consumers forget they purchased the warranty, pass the product to another person without explaining it to them, or do not know how to invoke it: often the customer ends up buying a new replacement product. In addition, the insurer of an extended warranty may claim the product was abused or used in a manner inconsistent with "normal wear". At point of purchase, many consumers pay little attention to the "fine print" of the warranty. Where retailers do honor their extended warranty, the volume of unused or unclaimed extended warranties amply cover the claims.
Consumer advocate groups, such as the non-profit Consumers Union, advise against purchasing extended warranties. David Butler of the Consumers Union says, "The extended warranty is definitely in the best interest of the company, but isn't often in the best interest of the consumer." He adds, "The company is much more likely to profit from the extended warranty than the consumer is." In many cases, if the item does need repairing, the cost of repairs are less than the cost of the extended warranty.
Consumers Union says only two products deserve extended warranty consideration: projection TV's and digital camcorders. Both are expensive to repair and need repairs frequently."
This is clearly biased and offers an uninformed view. -- Ascott 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Company more likely to profit than consumers." Sure, the majority of consumers will not need to make a claim just like the majority of motor vehicles will not have an accident in a year. It is only the minority who have problems. The extended warranty product provides protection to all customers just like any insurance product. In considering the net benefit to consumers, one must therefore compare the total cost to consumers against the total money returned to them. The organisations best placed to do this are the insurance companies behind these products.
From their perspective, the insurance industry continues to have unfavourable experiences with this product and continue to view this product category as a source of losses. Many have now withdrawn from this market segment. In practice, this means that payouts to consumers have been greater than the income collected and therefore the net benefit to consumers has been positive. -- Ascott 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Extended warranty is generally a global product as are the major manufacturers and reinsurers.-- Ascott 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should simply provide readers of a clearly defined definition of extended warranties, not whether or not they are worthwhile. That subject is purely based upon opinion. Some people believe in extended warranties, and I can tell you for a fact that Circuit City makes 60% profit on laptop protection plans, but that DOESN'T make them worthless. It can be beneficial to both parties involved. That's how business works, right? This really should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.69.6 ( talk) 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this needs internationalising Secretlondon 20:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
From VfD:
end moved discussion
The rewrite looks like it was made by Circuit City or CompUSA, those who benefit greatly from EW's. I liked the previous version better, but I'm biased. Most consumer advocate groups claim extended warranties are worthless except for a very few items. The rewrite makes it sound like only a few consumer groups decry them as a waste of money. The rewrite goes onto justify EW's as necessary for retailers to stay in business with Internet retailers cutting into their business. On the whole, it is a very POV rewrite. Compare this version to the current version. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Andrew G Scott (user:AScott)
Added the following:
"An extended warranty is coverage for electrical or mechanical breakdown. It does not cover peripheral items, wear and tear, damage by computer viruses, re-gassing, normal maintenance, accidental damage, or any consequential loss. The indemnity is to cover the cost of repair and may include replacement if deemed uneconomic for repair. It is important for consumers to read and understand the terms and conditions offered at the point of sale. The value of extended warranties lies behind the organization promoting and selling them. Most of the major retailers employ specialist administrators to manage the claims and to ensure the product is priced on a sustainable basis. An essential part of this is to determine the appropriate provisions on the balance sheet to reserve for future claims. Similarly, the income must be earned over the period of cover. Companies that have been around for several years will usually have the systems and data in place with which to do this. Less reputable organizations may not adequacy price their extended warranties and may therefore have insufficient funds to provide for future claims costs."
Remove the following: "An extended warranty is pitched like an "insurance policy" in case the product breaks down after the manufacturer’s standard warranty period. It promises more protection. However, in some cases, extended warranties might not be worthwhile.
Extended warranties are something of a cash cow for those who offer them. Few items with extended warranties ever need replacing or repairing and, if they ever do, many consumers forget they purchased the warranty, pass the product to another person without explaining it to them, or do not know how to invoke it: often the customer ends up buying a new replacement product. In addition, the insurer of an extended warranty may claim the product was abused or used in a manner inconsistent with "normal wear". At point of purchase, many consumers pay little attention to the "fine print" of the warranty. Where retailers do honor their extended warranty, the volume of unused or unclaimed extended warranties amply cover the claims.
Consumer advocate groups, such as the non-profit Consumers Union, advise against purchasing extended warranties. David Butler of the Consumers Union says, "The extended warranty is definitely in the best interest of the company, but isn't often in the best interest of the consumer." He adds, "The company is much more likely to profit from the extended warranty than the consumer is." In many cases, if the item does need repairing, the cost of repairs are less than the cost of the extended warranty.
Consumers Union says only two products deserve extended warranty consideration: projection TV's and digital camcorders. Both are expensive to repair and need repairs frequently."
This is clearly biased and offers an uninformed view. -- Ascott 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Company more likely to profit than consumers." Sure, the majority of consumers will not need to make a claim just like the majority of motor vehicles will not have an accident in a year. It is only the minority who have problems. The extended warranty product provides protection to all customers just like any insurance product. In considering the net benefit to consumers, one must therefore compare the total cost to consumers against the total money returned to them. The organisations best placed to do this are the insurance companies behind these products.
From their perspective, the insurance industry continues to have unfavourable experiences with this product and continue to view this product category as a source of losses. Many have now withdrawn from this market segment. In practice, this means that payouts to consumers have been greater than the income collected and therefore the net benefit to consumers has been positive. -- Ascott 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Extended warranty is generally a global product as are the major manufacturers and reinsurers.-- Ascott 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should simply provide readers of a clearly defined definition of extended warranties, not whether or not they are worthwhile. That subject is purely based upon opinion. Some people believe in extended warranties, and I can tell you for a fact that Circuit City makes 60% profit on laptop protection plans, but that DOESN'T make them worthless. It can be beneficial to both parties involved. That's how business works, right? This really should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.69.6 ( talk) 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)