Tweet
This is my second thread on the subject. My goal on this is to make this thread less of a rant and more of a discussion on their current policy which I believe to be a large business mistake, and I'm hoping for additional input from other owners and potential owners of the GC2 product, with the end goal of Foresight seeing the folly of their ways and reversing the recent decision to charge a $500 registration fee to second hand customers before selling them replacement parts or service.
It is my understanding based on inferences drawn from my conversation with a salesman at Foresight that this $500 transfer fee is out of frustration with a recent Golfsmith bankruptcy sale resulting in a hundred or so used GC2's flooding the market and resulting in a barrage of support calls at Foresight. Why I believe this to be a business mistake is because they are taking out their frustration on their customer base, thus depreciating their product and making it a less viable option for customers considering it.
The first major point I'd like to address to Foresight is that their perspective on their current situation is wrong. They are the manufacturer of the GC2 product, therefore everyone who bought one second hand are their customers as they are the current owner of their product. To give an analogy for an example, Toyota (or any other new car manufacturer) makes new vehicles that are sold in the United States. They are resold by a franchise owner dealer to the end consumer. If this product is traded in at a Ford dealership and then resold to another customer, that second customer is now a Toyota customer, regardless of whether they bought it new or used. That customer is entitled to all of the warranties offered to the original owner, and can service anywhere they choose. No new car manufacturer charges a transfer fee because they produce the product and that product represents them as a company regardless of who the end user is.
This brings me to my second point- Foresight is actively tanking their residual values with this current campaign, which actually will hurt them in the long run. The short sighted view of "charge a transfer fee before servicing the product or selling replacement parts" is folly for a number of reasons. Not only is it a penalty to the person who elected to buy the product used, but also is a penalty to everyone bought their product new, and will be a determining purchasing factor for anyone considering investing in the product. I bought my GC2 before this whole fiasco started, and I wasn't 100% sure that sim golf was for me. One of the reasons I bought it (and this is a factor any time a purchase that is a significant investment is considered) is because the GC2 is a product known for its resale value and demand, and based on that my logic was that if it didn't work out for me, I could resell it without incurring a massive financial penalty. With the introduction of a $500 transfer fee before services are offered and replacement parts are sold, a significant cost is added to a used unit, thus adjusting the price that it will bring, which hurts the owner of the product (the GC2 customer) selling it. Foresight is short sighted to think that this is just a penalty to those who bought their product used, this is a very real depreciation hit to anyone who currently owns one, including original owners.
Going back to that used car analogy, one of the reasons Toyota sells so many new cars is because of the resale of their product remaining high making it a smarter decision. Almost every product depreciates and that depreciation factors into cost of ownership. If Toyota would introduce a $500 ownership transfer fee before the second owner could even service the product at their cost, the prices the used cars would bring would go down as the second owner is factoring that into their purchase price. They would immediately begin to sell less new cars because the person purchasing the car would now have to factor in the additional depreciation caused by the fee. It hurts the original owner and ultimately the manufacturer because they sell less products as a result.
Going on to current second hand GC2 owners, the $500 transfer fee is ridiculous because Foresight is pushing away their own customers. Like I mentioned before, Foresight is looking at this all wrong as second hand owners are ALSO Foresight customers, because they bought the product. Not allowing that individual to service their product or buy replacement parts until paying a fee is insane as it comes across as a shameless cash grab. Myself and others who recently bought used GC2's (mine wasn't a Golfsmith unit but I bought around the same time,) are being asked to pay a fee before being allowed to pay for parts and service. This makes zero sense, as it is pushing away customers looking to pay retail for products that they offer. If I want to buy a battery from you and am willing to pay what you are asking for it, why on earth would you ask me to pay a transfer fee to do so? That $65 should by all rights be a profit, and that profit is Foresight's upside on that sale. When I send it in in the spring to get my front kick stand replaced, I'll be paying parts and labor to the tune of $200 or so from what I'm told, and that $200 will be a profit to them. When my flash (a wear and tear item) dies, I'll be buying a new one, at a profit. Foresight needs to recognize that the profit on replacement parts is what they stand to gain from servicing existing customers, and not a $500 profit before customers can then pay a profit.
I'm typing this while I'm at work and I'm sure I've leaving some points out that I'll go back to add, and obviously this is a forum so feel free to add on to it.
In summary, this letter is to explain to Foresight that what they are doing is wrong and that it is a poor business decision in the long run, and I strongly urge them to reconsider for the sake of the success of their business and their product. The GC2 is a great product and hope it continues to be, but this is not a market without competition and this current move certainly encourages customers to look at competitor products.
-Bob
It is my understanding based on inferences drawn from my conversation with a salesman at Foresight that this $500 transfer fee is out of frustration with a recent Golfsmith bankruptcy sale resulting in a hundred or so used GC2's flooding the market and resulting in a barrage of support calls at Foresight. Why I believe this to be a business mistake is because they are taking out their frustration on their customer base, thus depreciating their product and making it a less viable option for customers considering it.
The first major point I'd like to address to Foresight is that their perspective on their current situation is wrong. They are the manufacturer of the GC2 product, therefore everyone who bought one second hand are their customers as they are the current owner of their product. To give an analogy for an example, Toyota (or any other new car manufacturer) makes new vehicles that are sold in the United States. They are resold by a franchise owner dealer to the end consumer. If this product is traded in at a Ford dealership and then resold to another customer, that second customer is now a Toyota customer, regardless of whether they bought it new or used. That customer is entitled to all of the warranties offered to the original owner, and can service anywhere they choose. No new car manufacturer charges a transfer fee because they produce the product and that product represents them as a company regardless of who the end user is.
This brings me to my second point- Foresight is actively tanking their residual values with this current campaign, which actually will hurt them in the long run. The short sighted view of "charge a transfer fee before servicing the product or selling replacement parts" is folly for a number of reasons. Not only is it a penalty to the person who elected to buy the product used, but also is a penalty to everyone bought their product new, and will be a determining purchasing factor for anyone considering investing in the product. I bought my GC2 before this whole fiasco started, and I wasn't 100% sure that sim golf was for me. One of the reasons I bought it (and this is a factor any time a purchase that is a significant investment is considered) is because the GC2 is a product known for its resale value and demand, and based on that my logic was that if it didn't work out for me, I could resell it without incurring a massive financial penalty. With the introduction of a $500 transfer fee before services are offered and replacement parts are sold, a significant cost is added to a used unit, thus adjusting the price that it will bring, which hurts the owner of the product (the GC2 customer) selling it. Foresight is short sighted to think that this is just a penalty to those who bought their product used, this is a very real depreciation hit to anyone who currently owns one, including original owners.
Going back to that used car analogy, one of the reasons Toyota sells so many new cars is because of the resale of their product remaining high making it a smarter decision. Almost every product depreciates and that depreciation factors into cost of ownership. If Toyota would introduce a $500 ownership transfer fee before the second owner could even service the product at their cost, the prices the used cars would bring would go down as the second owner is factoring that into their purchase price. They would immediately begin to sell less new cars because the person purchasing the car would now have to factor in the additional depreciation caused by the fee. It hurts the original owner and ultimately the manufacturer because they sell less products as a result.
Going on to current second hand GC2 owners, the $500 transfer fee is ridiculous because Foresight is pushing away their own customers. Like I mentioned before, Foresight is looking at this all wrong as second hand owners are ALSO Foresight customers, because they bought the product. Not allowing that individual to service their product or buy replacement parts until paying a fee is insane as it comes across as a shameless cash grab. Myself and others who recently bought used GC2's (mine wasn't a Golfsmith unit but I bought around the same time,) are being asked to pay a fee before being allowed to pay for parts and service. This makes zero sense, as it is pushing away customers looking to pay retail for products that they offer. If I want to buy a battery from you and am willing to pay what you are asking for it, why on earth would you ask me to pay a transfer fee to do so? That $65 should by all rights be a profit, and that profit is Foresight's upside on that sale. When I send it in in the spring to get my front kick stand replaced, I'll be paying parts and labor to the tune of $200 or so from what I'm told, and that $200 will be a profit to them. When my flash (a wear and tear item) dies, I'll be buying a new one, at a profit. Foresight needs to recognize that the profit on replacement parts is what they stand to gain from servicing existing customers, and not a $500 profit before customers can then pay a profit.
I'm typing this while I'm at work and I'm sure I've leaving some points out that I'll go back to add, and obviously this is a forum so feel free to add on to it.
In summary, this letter is to explain to Foresight that what they are doing is wrong and that it is a poor business decision in the long run, and I strongly urge them to reconsider for the sake of the success of their business and their product. The GC2 is a great product and hope it continues to be, but this is not a market without competition and this current move certainly encourages customers to look at competitor products.
-Bob
Comment