Are optics warranties TOO good?

[Shō[t]gun]

It’s interesting to see how trends and priorities in the industry change over time. A lot of them lead to positive changes, but the “no-fault, fully transferable, infinite lifetimes” warranty has me befuddled. It used to just be Vortex but now it’s so standard that it’s a noted negative in reviews if a company doesn’t have it. As a customer I’ll gladly take advantage of anything a company offers, but I’m not sure the industry is a better place for it since it encourages manufacturers to push for cheaper production and higher profit margins to accommodate replacing free products indefinitely. I’m no business guru but it seems to me it makes for an illogical barrier of entry to upstart optics companies, and massive losses in the long term just trying to maintain/replace items that they’ll never see a profit from again. The big three haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, and it seems to me that Leica’s new warranty is a solid hybrid of the two approaches.

Does anyone else feel like it’s going to ruin companies that can’t keep up, or that it’s being used as a bait and switch to sell a ton of products until they see losses then reverse the policy?

 

[AZ_Hunter]

That’s an interesting take and makes some sense. I honestly never thought about it in that context.

 

[crich]

It's kind of like free 2 day shipping. People seem to just expect free shipping nowadays because postal and package delivery employees work for free .

Nothing is free from a business standpoint the cost is baked in somewhere.

Some companies are genuine and want to provide the absolute best for their customers and stand behind their products and others use it as a marketing tactic.

 

[Fireflyfishing]

It’s interesting to see how trends and priorities in the industry change over time. A lot of them lead to positive changes, but the “no-fault, fully transferable, infinite lifetimes” warranty has me befuddled. It used to just be Vortex but now it’s so standard that it’s a noted negative in reviews if a company doesn’t have it. As a customer I’ll gladly take advantage of anything a company offers, but I’m not sure the industry is a better place for it since it encourages manufacturers to push for cheaper production and higher profit margins to accommodate replacing free products indefinitely. I’m no business guru but it seems to me it makes for an illogical barrier of entry to upstart optics companies, and massive losses in the long term just trying to maintain/replace items that they’ll never see a profit from again. The big three haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, and it seems to me that Leica’s new warranty is a solid hybrid of the two approaches.

Does anyone else feel like it’s going to ruin companies that can’t keep up, or that it’s being used as a bait and switch to sell a ton of products until they see losses then reverse the policy?

After digging through all the scope evals recently, I’m not sure where I stand with optic manufactures and warrantees. I just figured out a scope crapped the bed and has been giving me fits on a certain rifle. It’s a Vortex, and I’m sure that’s no surprise to some. However, I do shoot often and have not had this problem before. I sent the scope back this week hoping for a fix…for free, of course. Yes, I know it could easily have the same issue in the future if bumped/dropped. I’m disappointed.

We all want combat ready, bomb proof equipment for our outdoor pursuits. How we get there I think has already started with the scope evals here on RS. Try and buy that highly reviewed Marvin scope right now…not happening as they’re sold out. When they get another run in stock, I’m guessing inventory won’t last long. So there is already a change in the market right there. I just bought a new ATACR after the incident above. Ultimately, we want a bomber optic AND a no BS warrantee.

Businesses will change their business model if the market forces them to do so. You mentioned Leica scopes above. After reading through the scope eval threads, I don’t care what warrantee they have, I won’t be buying a scope from them until I see positive durability reviews.

My mindset has changed from good company/good customer service to will their optics break easily?

I applaud @Ryan Avery and @Formidilosus for their efforts to expose one of the big marketing scams in the outdoor sporting industry’s sectors. We all just need to quit drinking the snake oil for positive change towards the consumer. I believe it can happen. Consider me a convert.

 

[Boarmaster]

I am in some agreement on no fault warranties. I would like to see two levels of warranties/ insurance available to buyers of new scopes. One or both could be transferable with a small fee to cover the registration of the transfer.
1) The manufactures warranty against manufactures defects and failure.
2) A no fault insurance policy for obvious damage with a small deductible.
As with anything there would be some headaches and exceptions.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

I am in some agreement on no fault warranties. I would like to see two levels of warranties/ insurance available to buyers of new scopes. One or both could be transferable with a small fee to cover the registration of the transfer.
1) The manufactures warranty against manufactures defects and failure.
2) A no fault insurance policy for obvious damage with a small deductible.
As with anything there would be some headaches and exceptions.

I completely agree. That makes sense for both customers and businesses. Good customer service without a welfare system.

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

It’s interesting to see how trends and priorities in the industry change over time. A lot of them lead to positive changes, but the “no-fault, fully transferable, infinite lifetimes” warranty has me befuddled. It used to just be Vortex but now it’s so standard that it’s a noted negative in reviews if a company doesn’t have it. As a customer I’ll gladly take advantage of anything a company offers, but I’m not sure the industry is a better place for it since it encourages manufacturers to push for cheaper production and higher profit margins to accommodate replacing free products indefinitely. I’m no business guru but it seems to me it makes for an illogical barrier of entry to upstart optics companies, and massive losses in the long term just trying to maintain/replace items that they’ll never see a profit from again. The big three haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, and it seems to me that Leica’s new warranty is a solid hybrid of the two approaches.

Does anyone else feel like it’s going to ruin companies that can’t keep up, or that it’s being used as a bait and switch to sell a ton of products until they see losses then reverse the policy?

All Warranties are marketing, nothing more. You can build a scope that will break for $110 or a scope that wont break for $800. Just put an awesome warranty on a cheap scope and the marketplace will lap it up like Sunday gravy. Statistics show us across manufacturing few people will take the time to send it in anyway and the ones who have the broken POS will still brag about how awesome the company is and how they "take care" of their customers. All the while consumers are lauding their cheap goods and the Mfr. sets records for profit over the superior product producers.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I have always understood that VIP unconditional warranties come with a cost. As I have been able to afford it, I have slowly upgraded all of my optics and usually the better the quality, the less warranty protection you have. Two ALPHA companies come to mind - Kowa and Swaro. Neither offer unconditional no fault warranties. Their optics would have to be priced significantly higher to off that kind of warranty.

 

[wildcat33]

It’s a trend across consumer products in general to move the product QC to the consumer. If the item breaks or defective either the consumer is too uniformed to know, too lazy to send it back, or sends it back for a replacement, either way it’s a win for the mfg. think about how many free scopes you can send out if you just eliminate one job.

 

[JGRaider]

It’s interesting to see how trends and priorities in the industry change over time. A lot of them lead to positive changes, but the “no-fault, fully transferable, infinite lifetimes” warranty has me befuddled. It used to just be Vortex but now it’s so standard that it’s a noted negative in reviews if a company doesn’t have it. As a customer I’ll gladly take advantage of anything a company offers, but I’m not sure the industry is a better place for it since it encourages manufacturers to push for cheaper production and higher profit margins to accommodate replacing free products indefinitely. I’m no business guru but it seems to me it makes for an illogical barrier of entry to upstart optics companies, and massive losses in the long term just trying to maintain/replace items that they’ll never see a profit from again. The big three haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, and it seems to me that Leica’s new warranty is a solid hybrid of the two approaches.

Does anyone else feel like it’s going to ruin companies that can’t keep up, or that it’s being used as a bait and switch to sell a ton of products until they see losses then reverse the policy?

Since this is your 2nd post on the same subject, I guess I didn't realize people actually wasted their time thinking about this situation. Plenty of products, plenty of companies selling optics for any price point the customer wishes to pay. Buy what you want.

Leupold wrote the book on customer service and warranty offerings years ago. Swaro came along and adopted the same lifetime transferrable (without no fault), then years later along came Vortex who adopted it as well and took warranty and customer service to another level. Since they've become the largest optical seller in the USA (probably worldwide) and obviously know how to make money, I'd say their business model is an unprecedented success whether anyone here likes it or not. The way they handled the Liberty Optics meltdown/screwing their paid customers tells me Vortex is a company that I'd support in a heartbeat. Name one other optics company that would have gone to bat for their customers like Vortex did.

 

[Wheels]

As you probably already know, there is tremendous markup on optics. I have a friend on the inside at Vortex and can get me anything they carry for 50% off, so that means there is probably another 25% to play with there. If 10% of their products fail, and they replace them, they still have a large profit margin.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Since this is your 2nd post on the same subject, I guess I didn't realize people actually wasted their time thinking about this situation. Plenty of products, plenty of companies selling optics for any price point the customer wishes to pay. Buy what you want.

Leupold wrote the book on customer service and warranty offerings years ago. Swaro came along and adopted the same lifetime transferrable (without no fault), then years later along came Vortex who adopted it as well and took warranty and customer service to another level. Since they've become the largest optical seller in the USA (probably worldwide) and obviously know how to make money, I'd say their business model is an unprecedented success whether anyone here likes it or not. The way they handled the Liberty Optics meltdown/screwing their paid customers tells me Vortex is a company that I'd support in a heartbeat. Name one other optics company that would have gone to bat for their customers like Vortex did.

It was brought up in another thread and instead of derailing that I decided to make a different one.
I didn’t even take a dump on Vortex in my post, go back and read it. And no Leupold doesn’t have a no-fault warranty last I checked.

 

[deertrout]

I don't think it will ruin companies that can't keep up. What will ruin a company is poor quality, regardless of how generous their warranty policies are. I don't want the hassle of having to send gear in for warranty repair/replacement, I want gear that doesn't break (due to manufacturing defects or poor design) and will gladly pay more for a quality product with a crap warranty vs less for an inferior product with a great warranty.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

As you probably already know, there is tremendous markup on optics. I have a friend on the inside at Vortex and can get me anything they carry for 50% off, so that means there is probably another 25% to play with there. If 10% of their products fail, and they replace them, they still have a large profit margin.

Failures are part of it. It’s another thing to back every product you’ve ever sold for the history of the company. In 50 years I can go buy a set of mangled $1500 binos at a yard sale for pennies and get a free brand new replacement from the company. It’s gotta catch up eventually right?

 

[Fireflyfishing]

The way they handled the Liberty Optics meltdown/screwing their paid customers tells me Vortex is a company that I'd support in a heartbeat. Name one other optics company that would have gone to bat for their customers like Vortex did.

So as a consumer you will purchase optics from this company based solely on this, or does quality of the product factor in? Intrigued as I think most of us want a product that preforms as advertised. I like great CS as much as the next guy, but in the end, I work hard for my money and I don’t want to spend it on faulty equipment.

 

[Macintosh]

I work for a small outdoor eyewear manufacturer now, we make sunglasses that cost as much as any brand out there save for the gucci fashion stuff. There is a lot of markup in eyewear, more than what's detailed above^^ (which actually isnt that much compared to many other outdoor products). The dollar has lost a bit against some of the currencies we buy in, and that few %-point change in our product cost is probably going to force us to raise our prices in 2025. Even with all that margin there isnt room for a small cost increase without taking a major hit in something that has an active role in driving our growth. We have a lifetime warranty in the US, and have for decades. I am literally looking at our P&L right now, and that warranty cost is NOT what will drive any increase, it's really a tiny cost in the scope of what we spend $ on. Some people take advantage of it, but many dont. It's a marketing gimmick, pure and simple--yes, there's some cost to it and it makes people feel good (including us), but I agree with the above posts detailing all of the people who DONT take advantage of said waranty, for all of those reasons. It's just not as big a cost and therefore not as big a % of the cost of each product, as some would have you believe.

 

[Unclecroc]

I just had this conversation this morning. I have the same feelings towards warranties like that.
It forces larger profit margins and the cost is past on into all the product lines.

 

[PathFinder]

From a manufacturing engineering standpoint, warranty work is non-value added waste. It is regarded as a way to pass quality on to the consumer, when the ideal is to build quality into the design and manufacturing processes (not QC checks).

 

[WRO]

look at the quality drop from manufacturers that offer it. It’s nearly all coming from china or worse because the warranty costs are mounting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

Failures are part of it. It’s another thing to back every product you’ve ever sold for the history of the company. In 50 years I can go buy a set of mangled $1500 binos at a yard sale for pennies and get a free brand new replacement from the company. It’s gotta catch up eventually right?

Technically, no. Eventually the company will transfer in an asset sale and none of that paper will be worth a penny.