Furniture Warranty Chargebacks Leave Both Sides Wrong

One side insists there is no problem. The other sometimes has a quota to prove there is.

This week's editorial comes from a guest writer, a longtime furniture merchant.

There are few subjects in the furniture industry that generate more friction between retailers and manufacturers than damage claims and warranty chargebacks. Having seen both sides firsthand, I can tell you that neither side has clean hands.

Follow FIN on LinkedIn for midweek news between issues.

The Manufacturer's Side

Let's start with the manufacturers.

We've all heard the argument. "You're the only retailer having this problem."

I once worked with a supplier whose service rate topped 50%. For every two pieces of furniture we sold, we were repairing one. Let that sink in for a moment. Yet the supplier repeatedly insisted that I was the only retailer experiencing these problems.

I made a few phone calls to other retailers. Their experiences were remarkably consistent with mine.

The supplier eventually lost our business.

So much for being the only retailer with a problem.

I experienced something similar when I visited the plant of a well-known furniture manufacturer. After repeatedly raising concerns about quality control, I was summoned by ownership, who wanted to show me why my complaints couldn't possibly be accurate. They walked me through the plant, demonstrating the extensive quality-control measures designed to prevent manufacturing defects.

I got the tour. I saw the process. And then I saw something I still remember.

On the production line, workers were rapidly assembling hoop-back side chairs. I noticed one chair where the back slats weren't properly aligned in the hoop. Worse, they weren't even glued in place. The chair moved right past the quality-control manager inspecting each piece and went straight into its box.

I couldn't believe what I'd just witnessed.

I knew I should say something, but calling attention to the defect in front of the owner of one of the largest furniture companies felt like an awkward way to interrupt a demonstration of supposedly flawless manufacturing. So I kept my mouth shut.

As luck would have it, the owner chose that very box at the end of the line, opened it, and reached in to demonstrate the chair's excellent construction.

The entire back hoop fell apart in front of us.

We were quickly ushered along to the next production line. I'm sure that moment had consequences for somebody on the factory floor, but what stuck with me wasn't the production failure. It was what happened afterward. The owner's recap never addressed the incident. The message remained the same. Excellent construction, rigorous quality control, virtually no problems.

I had just watched a chair fall apart during a tour designed to convince me that such things couldn't happen. And somehow, my concerns were still the problem.

The Retailer's Side

But the retailer's side of this story isn't any prettier.

While working as a merchandiser for a very large, well-known retailer, I was given substantial quotas for service chargebacks. My continued employment depended on hitting those numbers. Whether the actual, legitimate chargebacks supported the quota was beside the point. The goal had to be met, by any means necessary.

Think about that for a moment.

The manufacturer who insists there are virtually no problems, regardless of what retailers experience. The retailer who has a predetermined target to hit, regardless of the actual number of problems.

One side has an incentive to minimize damage. The other has an incentive to maximize it.

And somewhere between those two accounting departments sits the truth.

Fixing the System

This isn't to suggest that all manufacturers deny legitimate claims or that all retailers manipulate the system. Plenty of manufacturers stand behind their products, and plenty of retailers submit well-documented, entirely legitimate claims. But the incentives that encourage bad behavior exist, and pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.

The manufacturer who rejects legitimate claims is effectively asking the retailer to absorb the cost of its quality problems. The retailer who manufactures or inflates claims is using the supplier as an unwilling source of revenue. Neither practice is defensible.

Both have consequences beyond the immediate dollars involved. Claims become more contentious, documentation requirements multiply, relationships deteriorate, and legitimate problems become harder to resolve because neither side trusts the other.

The solution isn't complicated, even if the industry has struggled to implement it. Pay legitimate claims. Reject illegitimate ones. Track actual damage rates, investigate recurring problems, and stop treating service chargebacks as either an expense to be avoided at all costs or a revenue target that must be met.

A warranty claim should be about accountability, not leverage.

If a manufacturer truly believes a retailer is the only one experiencing a problem, it should be willing to investigate. And if a retailer is submitting more chargebacks than its actual service issues justify, someone should be asking why.

The furniture industry has enough legitimate challenges without creating additional ones through a system that rewards denial on one side and questionable claims on the other.

When one side is rewarded for saying there is no problem and the other is rewarded for claiming there is, don't be surprised when neither side tells you the truth.

Get the news that moves furniture between issues. Follow Furniture Industry News on LinkedIn.

Was this forwarded to you?

Subscribe free

Furniture Warranty Chargebacks Leave Both Sides Wrong