Slashdot Mirror
Google Re-Refunds Video Purchases
holymodal writes "In a new post to the Google blog Bindu Reddy, the Google Video product manager, admits that only offering refunds via Google Checkout was a bad idea: 'We should have anticipated that some users would see a Checkout credit as nothing more than an extra step of a different (and annoyingly self-serving) kind. Our bad.' Google now plans to issue customers a full credit card refund, while allowing them to keep the Checkout credit and extending the life of purchased videos another six months."
This is again an example of how a company should deal with their customers. Thank you Google.
:( )
(man...I wish I had bought around $4000 in Google Videos
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
This is one thing I do respect Google (and a pitiful few other companies) for - admitting mistakes. So many hassles and PR disasters could be averted by just admitting you FUBARed and are willing to make amends. Hell, our foreign policy could learn from that, even.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
How very unevil of google. Hm....
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
... and extending the life of purchased videos another six months.
I think he means "extending the life of rented videos another six months." I wish companies would just be clear on the fact that you aren't actually buying anything, if the seller can revoke your privilege to use it at any time. I'm really tired of government and corporations trying to undermine the idea of "property", of what is mine and what is not.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I actually wonder if Google planned on revoking the DRM movies the whole time. It's not hard for me to imagine myself thinking that way if I was the head of Google--give a first class lesson on why DRM sucks, that even normal people (albeit those who would buy movies via Google!) could understand.
It's like everything you buy has a long, long string literally attached to it; and at any time your new tv could start jerking toward your front door, outside, and back up the street to corporate headquarters.
expandfairuse.org
Well, they have a point that Checkout credits would entail fewer steps, but I think Google tried to avoid a bit of work here as how I understand it, with Checkout credits, the Google Video users themselves have to make sure the refund gets to them, but with the credit card refund, Google has to make sure everyone gets their refund.
Still, they admitted their mistake and corrected it, which is good.
I think that this decision on Google's part makes a very interesting precedent for any other vendor of DRMed goods. In order to have good customer service, Google is refunding all the money they've previously gained while they were in business. Although as other have stated, that may not be much, it's almost certainly caused them to lose whatever money they thought they had earned through it.
The message this sends to other companies in a similar business seems clear: "Don't ever leave the business so that your customers can't access their media. If you do, and you plan to ever do business again, it will cost you more than you earned throughout the entire process. Customers are effectively loaning you their money for as long as they can play their content."
What does this mean? I'm going to guess that if they listen to this message that they will glance nervously at each other as they slowly change over to non DRM content. Since that seems to be the trend currently, I would suppose that this can only accelerate it.
So there I was, juggling apples and small animals, when I accidentally bit into the wrong one...
Yes, the apology and refudnd was good, but as far as I am concerned it should never happened anyway, not as an oversight, not as a policy. Google shouldn't be a company that needs to be told that that sort of thing is bad practice, it should know it anyway. However, the people they double refund is a very nice touch which most companies wouldn't have done to make up for a mistake- I just wander what caused the complete round about turn, sounds like they found someone in a position of power who was too money orientated got replaced.
Now, business savvy people know that what Google offered originally was nothing worth offering, and it's even in the post, they knew the proper course of action.
If I was in Google's shoes I would have done it exactly as they did, offer some reimbursal that they knew wouldn't fly; for 2 reasons:
1. If enough people did bite and just take it, they save some cash
2. If people don't, they can just say, "Oops, we screwed up", offer what they should have in the first place and then get the extra attention and praise for really coming around and don't what's right and smart.
All companies should be doing the right thing up front, rather than later, or years and years later, in the case of some companies...
they're not stupid
So many hassles and PR disasters could be averted by just admitting you FUBARed
I agree that Google's initial offering was erroneous and distasteful, but do you really feel that they fucked up beyond all recognition?
b
myselfmusic
Who's been doing this and why? I've never even heard of it.
Sooner or later all DRM companies are going to shut off content people thought they owned.
Microsoft will simply say that your out of luck and what are you going to going to do about it.
Steve Jobs would announce that the devoted will now be able to buy all their content over again, but it'll be even cooler this time (and the crowd will cheer him over it).
Google says "oops, our bad, here's a refund. In fact here's a DOUBLE refund".
I know periodically Google gets involved in things that seem to show they're drifting to the dark side of giant ass-raping corporatism, but amazingly obvious pro-customer decisions like this show that there is at least a significant amount of "not Evil" left in the heart of Google.
This is the kind of behavior you expect from a local mom and pop store or some other small business who wants to make you happy more than they want to screw you out of $5 just because they can.
Seeing that Google is taking care of end-of-product-lifed customers is going to make people a lot more comfortable taking a risk on future Google products. I know that if they do something else I'm not sure will last but sounds good, I'll go ahead and buy. I don't think I would have before.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Except the blog still says that users have to start the refund process, by providing up-to-date information for themselves. So its still in the user's hands.
:)
Still, wish I'd bought some Google videos, now.
If you can't find a real troll, just mod down whoever you don't agree with!
Google is doing the right thing. Do you think the RIAA or even Apple would? I think not. Just because Google sets a good example doesn't mean everyone will follow; I'd read those terms and conditions carefully, because I expect most of the drm-laden crap you buy has escape hatches in case of emergency built into the T&C so they don't have to refund jack.
If you have invested in time in amassing a collection of Google videos (I know, I know, but hypothetically speaking), neither Google nor anyone else should have the right to reverse that sale at their leisure, forcing you to re-amass the same collection by other means. Even if they compensate you extra -- that isn't the point. A collection-refund-recollection process is not what you signed up for. The only fair thing to do is to offer software to remove the DRM so that everybody can keep whatever they collected. Nothing else even comes close -- not even Google's sweet little maneuver where you cancel a DRM service and threaten Draconian consequences, and then move up the compensation and the disconnection deadline a few days later, so that everyone will talk about how nice they are (gee, being nice is easy, all you have to do is threaten to be a bastard before you do what you were planning to do anyway) -- so that the public will focus on that instead of focusing on the matter at hand: Google just unilaterally revoked thousands of already-completed sales. This is wrong. The amount of compensation is just an attempt to make up for the wrong, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.
... then it would be no issue whatsoever. Pay. Download. Watch. No problems.
That was probably one of the best erotic literature I have read in a while.
me i would say that it should be law that your drm method has a Non Revokeable permanent unlock code for just this kind of case (or have say 3 different folks split the method of breaking your drm with instructions to release if you don't do ACTION every 3 months)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Me too. First time I've jacked off while reading slashdot. First time this week, at least.
Everything stands in my comment other than the monetary issue. I still think this is a pretty evil thing to do and shows you exactly what "defective by design" means. Could you imagine Wal-Mart coming and repossessing your DVDs because they don't want you watching them anymore? Would you really care if they slapped some money on the table as they were leaving?
It it's FU beyond all repair, how do they fix it?
We recently emailed you to let you know that Google is ending the
Google Video download to own/rent (DTO/DTR) program, and that
you'd receive a Google Checkout bonus equal to or greater than the
total amount of your Google Video purchases.
Since then, we've received feedback from people dissatisfied with
our approach to phase out the Google Video download to own/rent
program, so we've decided to take additional steps to address
these concerns:
1. We will fully refund your credit card for the total amount
of your Google Video purchases.
2. We're going to continue to support playing your videos
through February, 2008. We won't be offering the ability to buy
additional videos, but what you have already downloaded will
remain playable.
3. The Google Checkout bonus you've already received is yours
to keep. You can use your bonus at the following stores:
http://www.google.com/checkout/signupwelcome.html . Your bonus
expires on October 31, 2007, and the minimum purchase amount must
be equal to or greater than your bonus amount, before shipping and
tax.
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
While Google's response to the problem was magnanimous and exemplary, what's worrying here is that at least part of the Google culture has gone from one of "does this make sense?" to "will our customers complain too much?"
Anyone with half a brain could have told them that, no matter their good intentions, it could never have worked without making people upset. Of course, seen from their point of view, giving Google Checkout credit to people who probably weren't watching the films anymore anyway was probably a net positive for the users, as they get real credit in exchange for something they weren't using anymore. In retrospect, for most users I think this was more than fair. However, that's not the way they presented the solution.
They presented it as "You WILL do this and you WILL like it." And I admit in the beginning I was pretty shocked, too.
Here is a plausible rendition of events:
1) Someone wanted the service shut down immediately (why not let it linger on for forever? Does it cost that much money to maintain a service already established and debugged?).
2) The net result was an inability on Google's part to find out what the customers wanted and what they would find acceptable. (This is not how you or I would have done things as normal people, this is how a large corporation acts when bean-counters are running things.)
3) The users found themselves suddenly shoved in an unexpected direction by a giant corporation.
4) Profit!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist)
5) Users complained and some of these complaints made it to normal people in Google, people who thought as we did that this was pretty unacceptable.
6) These normal-thinking people still hold enormous sway in the company and could set it back on the right track.
Is this hiccough of Google's corporate conduct showing us a culture shift within the giant? Are they spending more time on honing their image skills and less on their products? Time will tell.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
American Express cards arent idenfitiable by region based only on their card numbers like with MC/Visa. So just grab one of those assuming you are in a country they are permitted and use it freely for online/america purchases. I encountered the same issue as you (in reverse) when trying to use a US credit card to refill a UK sim card online-- no US cards allowed. My American Express worked fine.