| Register/Subscribe Home |
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | | JANUARY 5, 2001 CLICKS & MISSES By Susan J. Marks Where Web Gripes Get a Hearing Think you got ripped off in an online auction? SquareTrade.com's dispute-resolution service may be able to help
The negative is that the process only works if both sides are willing to talk -- and even then there's no guarantee both sides will follow through on any solution agreed upon using this voluntary Web service. Still, there's an obvious need for a site like this. One-third of the complaints to the Federal Trade Commission's consumer hotline stem from an e-commerce deal gone awry, reports Maneesha Mithal, an attorney with the FTC's International Consumer Complaint Program. The problem is that getting help from consumer-protection authorities is almost as cumbersome as suing. SquareTrade is among the largest of the online dispute-resolution sites (ODRs) that claim to have the answer to your worst shopping nightmares. LESS HASSLE. These are neutral online venues where buyer and seller can chat via e-mail and try to resolve their differences, with or without the help of a professional mediator. The appeal is that sites like this are easy to use, inexpensive, and available all the time -- without the hassle of small claims court. Yes, it can work. But only if both parties are willing to play the game. If I have a beef with a seller on eBay, for example, and he's unwilling to respond to SquareTrade's e-mails asking to talk with me, then I'm all but out of luck. But SquareTrade folks say that doesn't happen in the "majority" of cases. After taking SquareTrade for a test run, I can see why it has handled more than 30,000 cases in less than a year -- and also why it claims an 80%-plus settlement rate. The process is simple, takes little in the way of navigation skills or PC expertise, and doesn't suffer from glitches like slow downloads or broken links that are typical of many Web sites. All I had to do was sign up, spell out my gripe on a fill-in-the-blanks form, and SquareTrade, using automated software, contacted the other person, explained my gripe, and asked for cooperation in resolving the dispute. BOGUS BALL? SquareTrade's e-mail exchanges between buyer and seller are free, and unlike some other ODR sites, they're confidential. If either side requests a mediator, there's a fee -- $20 for cases involving less than $1,000, and $20 plus one-half of 1% of the dollar amount involved for disputes with more than $1,000 at stake. (For claims stemming from eBay trades, the auction site itself pitches in $5 toward the service fee, so it only costs you $15.) The mediators are professionals who contract with SquareTrade. Since SquareTrade's privacy policies prohibit me from clicking into an existing dispute, I worked with SquareTrade to see the process in action. A friend and I portrayed the opposing sides in a real-life conflict that I came across while researching online dispute resolution. In the case I chose to replicate, the buyer of an autographed Tiger Woods golf ball claimed the $50 trinket she bought through a Yahoo! auction was a fake. The seller insisted it was authentic. After explaining to SquareTrade that we wanted to see the process at work, the company agreed to let us take our case step-by-step through the process without telling the mediator that we were not the original parties. I represented the buyer, who wanted a refund. My friend took the part of the seller, who insisted the sale was legit. As the buyer and initiator of the case, it took me about 10 minutes to sign up. I had to supply all the basic information: my name, my e-mail address, the date of the transaction, and the identity of the seller (including the seller's e-mail address), the dollar amount at issue, and a description of the merchandise. Then I had to lay out the problem and my desired solution. SquareTrade also asked for an invoice number to help the other side identify which transaction was in dispute. I had to choose a password since access to each case is protected. POWER OF THREE. After I filed the case, my friend -- the seller -- received an almost instantaneous e-mail from SquareTrade that announced the dispute had been filed and provided a link to the case page. He had the opportunity to respond to the allegations and propose his solution. His responses came back to me the same way: an e-mail notification from SquareTrade and a link to the case page. There's no limit set on how long this automated process can continue. At this stage of the game, SquareTrade, with its software, is just the messenger, albeit one with some clout. Its size and association with sites like eBay matter in online communities, where peer pressure can prod a seller to cooperate. A third party's involvement -- even a passive one -- can be enough to make an ordinarily reluctant buyer or seller sit down at the cybertable and talk. My friend, sitting in for the golf ball seller, played his role by refusing to admit the autograph was a fake. Noting his recalcitrance, I spent the $20 for the services of a SquareTrade mediator. It was interesting to watch the mediator push the two of us toward the middle: His suggestion that I try to look at the case from the seller's point of view mellowed my adversarial approach and moved me to compromise. Originally, I had wanted a full refund -- including shipping costs, which the buyer rejected. The mediator persuaded me to accept a full refund minus shipping costs, which I agreed to pick up in exchange for the seller sending the money before the product was returned. THE VERDICT. Mediation at SquareTrade can continue as long as the mediator believes there's any chance a settlement can be reached. A caveat: Even when both parties agree to it, the settlement remains voluntary. SquareTrade offers mediation, not binding arbitration. It's also worth noting that in the real case our mock dispute was modeled on, online dispute resolution didn't work: The seller simply refused to respond to e-mail requesting mediation. But this cyber mediation often does work, certainly enough to make it worth trying. The bottom line: SquareTrade often works, but it's not without its own challenges and annoyances. My model mediation took eight days because the three of us were online at different times, so responses to proposals -- and the reaching of a mock settlement -- were delayed. I would have preferred a three-way online discussion in real time. But this process actually does bring parties together to talk, albeit indirectly. Also, SquareTrade doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and it's much simpler than heading to court. What do you have to lose?  Marks writes about the Internet from Denver  | | |
 Copyright 2001 , by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |
Printer-Friendly Version
