Changing Times . . .

      Don Magary, Editor

 Let’s face it, sometimes an RV buyer ends up with a unit that’s not an RV manufacturer’s best effort. It happens to any manufacturer whether it’s automobiles, coffeepots or RVs. The result is an unhappy customer. Obviously, a manufacturer with any conscience tries to find a way to satisfy the buyer by offering to fix the problem. However, there are occasions when no middle ground can be reached and the manufacturer and consumer reach an impasse. Now what happens? The consumer either lives with the problem or he seeks ways to force the manufacturer to come up with a solution that is satisfactory to him. This adversarial relationship is apt to end up either in court or before a lemon law hearing and the real battle begins.

In the past, the unhappy customer would tell his story to his friends and possibly tell it to the few people he might meet at the campground. His realm of influence was relatively narrow. For a manufacturer it was a small public relations problem. Today however, the consumer can broadcast his story to thousands, possibly millions of people, through various opportunities presented on the Internet. Now it’s a large public relations problem not only for the manufacturer but for the industry as well.

A case in point — last year an unhappy Holiday Rambler owner created a web site to tell his story. He presented his side of the story effectively through documentation, photography and an emotional appeal. Who knows how many thousands of people saw his story and how many people he influenced to not buy Holiday Ramblers through this most effective effort.

RV manufacturers’ policies on handling complaints from customers when it goes to the point of no return varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. RV News has talked to several manufacturers but cannot find any consistent policy.

In the meantime unhappy customers continue to use the Internet to tell their stories. There’s another case that’s in litigation right now that further spotlights the problem. We don’t mean to pick on Holiday Rambler, but this case also involves an unhappy Holiday Rambler owner. What this probably means is that the Holiday Rambler owner is better educated and more articulate than others.

It’s a Florida case involving N.K. Drummond of Jacksonville, FL.

My question is how much is at stake and what’s the manufacturer’s purpose in fighting the consumer. It seems to me that the bad publicity and the unhappy consumer telling his story to everyone and anyone who will listen may cause more damage to HRC and possibly the industry than if the matter was brought to an end, and the longer it is stretched out, the longer time the consumer has to tell his story.

Drummond posted the following message to the Internet:

Saturday, June 14,

N. K. Drummond kdrum@daci.com

Jacksonville, Florida

94 Holiday Rambler LE

In Nov 94 my wife and I purchased a 94 Holiday Rambler Endeavor LE from Motorhomes of Jacksonville, located in Jacksonville, Fl. Almost from the date of purchase we began to have mechanical and electrical problems with the coach. It got so bad that it became a standing joke that every time we tried to use the coach we wondered what would break or fail. After 118 days in the shop for repairs to everything from the jacks to the A/C’s, we filed the necessary paperwork with the state to have the coach declared a "lemon".

After hearing testimony from both sides, the coach was officially declared a "lemon" and Holiday Rambler was ordered by the state to pay us $31,000 and to repurchase the coach. In Florida, either party has the right to appeal the decision of the board and this is what Holiday did. By appealing the decision, I then had to hire an attorney to represent me or I would have lost the case immediately. The Board grounded it’s decision on the fact that under Florida’s law, a vehicle shall be declared a "lemon" if it is in the shop 30 or more out of service days or if there have been 3 or more repair attempts on a single item. In our case the coach had been out of service 54 days and there had been 4 repair attempts on the forward A/C. The Board felt that the forward A/C was required to cool that portion of the coach containing seat belts for passengers. Holiday’s appeal was based on the fact that the A/C worked when we went to arbitration, so therefore the coach should not have been declared a "lemon". Evidently Holiday believes the law should be changed to suit their own standards.

In the past year my wife and I have been accused of misuse, neglect and failure to provide Holiday adequate time to repair the coach. Holiday has refused to admit the work orders and warranty claim forms from their own dealer are valid. They have refused to provide answers to questions submitted to them by my attorney. Mediation is scheduled for June 30th and trial by jury is scheduled for July 21st. However, Holiday has come up with a new tactic. On June 11th they sent 3 experts to examine our coach and because of that examination they are now claiming that the original selling dealer is partially to blame for the problems and that the Ford Chassis has also caused some of the problems. Because of these supposed "new facts" Holiday’s attorney is going to file for a continuance of trial which may put it off for another 6 months to one year. Our coach has been sitting, available for inspection for the past year. Why did Holiday wait until 19 days before mediation to make their inspection? Why did they come up with these new facts in the case that can cause the blame for the problems to be shifted to companies other than themselves? The answer is simple, they want to postpone the trial as long as possible in the hopes that I will die of old age or simply run out of money to continue the case and then they have won. If this is an example of Holiday’s commitment to quality and customer service then I, as an owner of a Holiday product and having gone through this experience could not and would not recommend this product to anyone. It would appear that Holiday is driven by profits only and has no interest in resolving problems or they would have made some effort to settle this case long ago.

For what it’s worth, my legal expenses to date stand at $8,900. and the way things are going I expect we will be well over $20,000. before this case is settled and our savings will be gone, all because Holiday Rambler did not want to settle this case.

Would you buy a Holiday?

Holiday was successful in getting the case postponed so the court date is now delayed six to eight months.

To illustrate what kind of impact such a message has, take a look at this message that was left on the RV America On Line Guest Book on the Internet:

Name: GREG MAIDA

Location: Herkimer, NY USA

Date: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 20:56:10

Comments:

25 june 97

I’m glade that i found your site. I was going to purchase a holiday rambler class a. But after reading about the problems N.K. DRUMMOND was having with the mfg. I have changed my mind about holiday rambler. Thanks for keeping us informed. greg maida

Subsequently, according to Drummond, Holiday Rambler’s legal team contacted Drummond’s attorney threatening to bring legal action against Drummond for libel or slander for using the Internet to tell his story. The truth of the matter is the First Amendment guarantees Drummond’s right to free speech as long as he presents his case factually.

On the surface, Drummond’s story seems believable that he has a coach with problems. How can HRC ever come out on top when the consumer tells people he believes HRC is delaying getting the issue to court, rather hoping he (Drummond) will either die or run out of money — that’s pretty emotional stuff.

Regardless of the facts, however, it comes off looking as if the big corporate giant is bullying the poor consumer — a no-win situation for either HRC or the industry.

We know that there must be good reasons why Holiday Rambler feels the necessity to fight this consumer rather than getting problem solved, but we question whether the long range detriment to Holiday and the industry is worth whatever benefits HRC might gain even

if they eventually win the case. And the truth is that manufacturers seldom win these cases and end up settling out of court.

We present this case, again not to pick on Holiday Rambler, but to point out a larger problem for the industry. The industry is spending millions of dollars for market expansion, but how much of the positive impact of this campaign is being chipped away by the unhappy customers of the world.

We have said for the past year-and-a-half that the Internet is changing the way we will do business in the future, but it goes beyond just a new marketing medium — it is giving the consumer more power than he has ever had before. And it’s not going to go away.

And for those businesses, RV manufacturers especially, that have thus far ignored the Internet, the message is loud and clear — it’s time to pay

attention. Times are changing and the Internet is playing an ever-increasing important role in the day-to-day business of this industry.

We as an industry can ill afford having the Internet become a burden when it has so much positive potential. Until we as an industry take customer care seriously and reduce the number of unhappy customers — a small, but highly vocal group — we can never reach our potential — no matter how many millions we pour into market expansion programs.

       RVN