Do you realize how flawed that logic is? You agree to the fact CTT has repeat customers and that most of the time they get what they want... isn't that what any good business wants to achieve most? You also acknowledge
"This may a small minority of customers,"I'd call you out for never having run a business or had any concept of business dynamic because you must believe that failure to maintain a 100% customer satisfaction is a critical business pitfall. Try and run a business with that attitude and you'd be going bankrupt within the first few years... There is no business on the face of the earth that can keep up that charade... there will always be complainers.
In saying that, I've been in business with companies that burn their bridges with customers and still have enough of a market sphere to maintain significant returns. Is it appropriate or ethical, of course not, but the world doesn't always aim to please and this doesn't always equate to poor revenue. Rules are made for those that use them, not those that need them...
To quote you again:
"Inferior goods and/or trouble returning and/or trouble refunding. It may not be the norm, but there is a pattern with how customers that have issues are treated."If the goods were inferior, then the original manufacturer had a fault not CTT. This is obviously not CTT's fault unless you have evidence to support your claims that their goods are knock-offs - especially after direct notification from the company stating otherwise. I'd watch for defamation with that kind of language. While it is their duty to provide returns, we have numerous bodies to regulate this in Australia. Fair Trading and ACCC on the government end and the individuals' credit card, paypal and a range of other avenues that can force a refund. None of these have investigate them as stated in their last announcement. To suggest that refunds are difficult here is ludicrous, and you clearly haven't done enough shopping to know how to protect yourself when and if you get stung. Getting back on track, this so-called pattern (which isn't the norm) you claim to observe has no numbers behind it, therefore it's effect is unsubstantiated to justify the claims you make. CTT have directly notified that their repeat customer base is significant and accounts for a significant proportion of continuing sales. To quote CTT's last announcement directly:
"The Company is continuing to invest in product and customer service improvements to enhance its offering. In the year ending 31 March 2024, the Company experienced a substantial improvement in 12 month customer retention. Furthermore, in Q3 FY24, 62 per cent of the Company’s gross 2 Cettire Limited – ACN 645 474 166 revenues came from repeat customers. These metrics provide Cettire with strong proof points that its proposition is not only resonating with consumers, but also improving over time. Cettire is not aware of any ACCC investigation into its customer service practices.
If you are going to make claims, at least spend some time to justify them. Your approach to spin otherwise unfounded junk is far worse than
@ZackButler given he has at least direct experience in the matter. Your critique on Zack also is prime example of logical fallacy, evidence of your lack of reasoning, and to put it blunt, the number of posts is not indicative of truth or quality. Stick with actual content on the stock rather than smear campaigns.
(20min delay)