Well, this is going to be a small and easy case.
My Indian friend’s tennis racket got broken when the racket’s top edge hit a metallic surface. Note that the force of the impact was very small.
Surprisingly, the racket did not break at the point of impact. Rather, there was a small hair-line crack towards the bottom left-hand side. See picture here.
My friend then called Babolat’s customer support asking for a replacement–as his racket was under warranty.
We all had very low expectations of his request being entertained. Babolat is very strict about replacements, and, as per a tennis forum, only about 10% of Babolat warranty requests get fulfilled.
However, to our utter surprise, the customer support agent readily agreed (without needing to escalate the call to his superior) to my friend’s request, provided there was no evidence of intentionally banging the racket and hence breaking it.
My friends got the replacement within 1 month!
Can you answer the case question, based on the above dots?1
0 of 1 questions completed
You have already completed the case before. Hence you can not start it again.
Case is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the case.
You have to pass the previous Module’s case in order to start this case
0 of 1 questions answered correctly
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
No matter how much good a company is in customer service, it will not replace an as break-prone item such as a Tennis racket unconditionally. This is all the more true for the Indian market. Moreover, this is also reflected in the 10% replacement rate for the company.
So, why did the company agree so readily in this case? Also, why did the racket break despite a very small impact?
The theory that best connect all these dots is that the product line must be having a minor manufacturing defect which would be causing the rackets to crack–even upon small impacts. The company must be knowing this already based on previous complaints.
Hence, they must have come up with a policy to replace those rackets, provided there was no evidence of intentional breaking of the racket. They must have communicated this policy to there customer support team, and hence the agent was able to take a decision without involving any of his superiors!
1. Question10 point(s)
Which of the following statements best sensemakes this situation?CorrectIncorrect