prosumerhacks wrote:
Had similar issues with Cardinal Camera during A7R3 pre order! They lied multiple times on the phone about stock availability and offered to refund once I raised the concern with GT. So you are not alone. I should also acknowledge that several other members here have had good experiences with them via GT. So it depends on case but I'd avoid them dealing with them next time.
I experienced the same from them. I stuck with the order and finally got the camera. A couple days ago, I sought a lens via Greentoe and specifically requested that the order not be presented to Cardinal.
prosumerhacks wrote:
Had similar issues with Cardinal Camera during A7R3 pre order! They lied multiple times on the phone about stock availability and offered to refund once I raised the concern with GT. So you are not alone. I should also acknowledge that several other members here have had good experiences with them via GT. So it depends on case but I'd avoid them dealing with them next time.
Cardinal held onto my paid order for a month before shipping out the 16-35 GM.
I didn't even know they shipped it till it I got a call from concierge when I was on vacation...
blankseller wrote:
What concerns me is that Greentoe has yet to take Cardinal off of their vendor list despite numerous complaints and questionable business practice.
If more of us who have used GT comes forward with the good and the bad, we will know more about who they work with and what their response to questionable situations are.
mjm6 wrote:
You sure about that? I just got notice of shipment on my a7iii... will arrive on the 11-12th. That seems fast enough for me.
Mind sharing when you placed the order via GT. Also, it looks like Sony has released a higher than usual count of A73 bodies to more than make for the preorders.
Not sure exactly when I placed the order, but it was a few days after the orders opened; not on the first or second day for sure. Probably in the first week, though.
My point in commenting is that they don't appear to be giving preferential treatment to anyone not using the GT system, at least in that the orders they took at that time are being fulfilled seemingly as early as any full price order.
mjm6 wrote:
Not sure exactly when I placed the order, but it was a few days after the orders opened; not on the first or second day for sure. Probably in the first week, though.
My point in commenting is that they don't appear to be giving preferential treatment to anyone not using the GT system, at least in that the orders they took at that time are being fulfilled seemingly as early as any full price order.
Point taken. It also depends on the retailer fulfilling the order. I've heard that Procam is the vendor fulfilling GT A73 orders now, in the sequence they received orders. Haven't heard about others, still checking. It was the case with A7R3 pre orders too.
prosumerhacks wrote:
Point taken. It also depends on the retailer fulfilling the order. I've heard that Procam is the vendor fulfilling GT A73 orders now, in the sequence they received orders. Haven't heard about others, still checking. It was the case with A7R3 pre orders too.
I can confirm this. My preorder from 3/15 shipped today but the second A7 III I ordered which is being fulfilled from the same seller (also *edited out* via GT) on 3/28 has not shipped.
Guys, is there a reason we are so nonchalantly bandying about the names of retailers fulfilling GT orders when GT specifically asks us to refrain from doing so? I wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds me...
People who ordered theirs from Greentoe, did you get any indication of when A7iii will ship ? I ordered mine thru Bestbuy and later did GreenToe, I already got shipment notification for A7iii from Bestbuy, but nothing yet from Greentoe.
mitesh wrote:
Guys, is there a reason we are so nonchalantly bandying about the names of retailers fulfilling GT orders when GT specifically asks us to refrain from doing so? I wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds me...
Not to be disrespectful but it'd be good to read the https://www.greentoe.com/faq for better understanding of their business model. Name-your-own price service business model is nothing new. This offers willing buyers discounted prices and also helps retailers sell excess capacity without affecting published retail prices. GT does not provide the retailer's information prior to the payment being processed which is understandable. This shields their relationship with retailers and enables them to receive better pricing and guaranteed sales. The retailer's information is provided after payment has been processed. Once the transaction is complete, the buyer-seller relationship allows the customer to disclose who they purchased from. All manufacturer rebates, warranties etc are available to the buyer since completing the sale. A mere request in a private email to the customer not to disclose the retailer's name doesn't constitute a policy. Also, not every customer receives this email. There has been many threads in forums like DPR/POTN etc where Greentoe has clarified why they would "prefer" customers not disclose the retailers but they do not explicitly put this down as a policy which for obvious reasons can't be enforced.
No argument with what you’ve posted. We know Henry from B&H has mentioned here previously that retailers can suffer consequences of violating MAP agreements. Maybe an incorrect assumption on my part, but I had assumed that protecting partnering retailers from such issues is one reason why GT sends emails stating the following:
“I wanted to reach out and send you a friendly reminder that while we encourage you to spread the word about your deal, it is very important that you never reveal the retailer name (even in private messaging within forums). So, please share the concept and the deal on forums, social media, and everywhere. But, keep the retailer name confidential.”
Anyway, carry on .
prosumerhacks wrote:
Not to be disrespectful but it'd be good to read the https://www.greentoe.com/faq for better understanding of their business model. Name-your-own price service business model is nothing new. This offers willing buyers discounted prices and also helps retailers sell excess capacity without affecting published retail prices. GT does not provide the retailer's information prior to the payment being processed which is understandable. This shields their relationship with retailers and enables them to receive better pricing and guaranteed sales. The retailer's information is provided after payment has been processed. Once the transaction is complete, the buyer-seller relationship allows the customer to disclose who they purchased from. All manufacturer rebates, warranties etc are available to the buyer since completing the sale. A mere request in a private email to the customer not to disclose the retailer's name doesn't constitute a policy. Also, not every customer receives this email. There has been many threads in forums like DPR/POTN etc where Greentoe has clarified why they would "prefer" customers not disclose the retailers but they do not explicitly put this down as a policy which for obvious reasons can't be enforced.
In the interest of keeping the good deals coming I have edited out the GT seller's identity from my previous post.
We should keep on actively reporting the rolling rate of preorder fulfillment, though, IMO. I may be a "grown up" but I still definitely want to know which day Santa Claus is coming to town.
.