Hi, I really feel for iybysisul. I don't work for John Lewis but I had exactly the same thing happen to me and felt that it went very well emotionally, practically and financially.
I'm going to relate my story but I'm also going to talk about how it may have gone better in the example iybyisul has given.
Please can I ask iybyisul's forgiveness beforehand, I absolutely don't want to give the impression that I'm criticising in any way, be do want to offer a few thoughts.
Situation
I bought a Samsung UE48H6400 off John Lewis in 2014. Six weeks before the end of the guarantee the set developed these white flare spore on the TV. Booked a John Lewis technician to come round, was told by the technician that I would be sent a new panel replacement. After the technician left I received a call from John Lewis to say that they wouldn't replace the panel and that under the guarantee I could a replacement set.
Initially they offered a sum of money but in the end I got a TV that I put an extra two hundred pounds to and got a very nice Panasonic 58 inch tv gx800.
Practicalities
In terms of the replacement set, what John Lewis are offering is a guarantee of technology not guarantee of money. The example I was given was that if Sony, for example, have three tiers of TVs and you buy a TV from tier two, then if the TV goes wrong, you are able to get a TV from the current tier 2 range.
Flexibility and Negotiation.
I really empathise with iybyisul. Something that comes through in this case is that the communication could have been different. I think iybyisul very reasonably responded to the information that John Lewis gave and then tried to negotiate on that basis. I think John Lewis could have been a little more flexible and what comes across is, I think, that once John Lewis had stated a position, they felt they had to stick to it.
Better Outcome.
When discussing a situation like this with a retailer the first call with the retailer should rarely be to resolve the issue or at least it might be better if you think that resolving the matter on a first call is a rare occurrence so that it's a bonus if you do.
The first call to a retail 'should' (forgive the 'should') be to assess what the response of the retailer is. Remember that a guarantee only exists when human being interpret it. Whatever you and the retailer's expectations of the guarantee are, they only really exist when implemented. So, the first call 'should' be exploratory. Ask what the retailer will do and what they expect the next course of action is. Use "If" statements - "if you do this or if I do that can I or can you". Make it clear you're give finding out what happens before making any decisions. You do this for two reasons, firstly, the retailer will generally feel they know more than you (and they probably do) so the first call is really to hopefully level the playing field, so that you have as much information as the retailer. The second reason is that on a first call you'll generally have little idea of where to "push' - from the retailer end there's usually a person in a call centre who will have a set of rules they have to follow, often by prompt screens. Some of the rules at the company end will be non negotiable, some will be more flexible.
After you've had the first call, tell the retailer you'll think about things and would it be ok to call back with more questions. If you have a good call with someone from the company ask if you can speak to them again. In any case, always take the name of the person you speak to and always use their name when you speak to them. When you call again, don't say "I spoke to customer service" - say "I spoke to (person's name)" - Someone once said that call centres can be the "dark satanic mills" of the 21st Century so connecting with people in a call centre can brighten their day and yours.
My Better Outcome
When I first rang John Lewis I asked what could happen and was told what the guarantee was based on and how it normally worked. I went away and came back and said to them that the TV I wanted was seventy pound more expensive than the one they were offering. I said that I appreciated that they were offering a very nice TV but as a person on a low income (I am on ill health benefits) would they consider letting me have the slightly higher cost TV.
They said that they would (thank you very much John Lewis). As it happens, money was so tight that I took the money and then two months later bought a Panasonic 58 inch tv gx800 - again from John lewis.
Possible reasons for difference
Let's not rule out luck, maybe I was just lucky.
However, I think that one thing that comes across from the above example is I think iybyisul very reasonably reacted to the information given and reacted accordingly. John Lewis for their part thought that they had stated a position and felt they had to stick to it.
What the agent at John Lewis could have done better is read their own company information about their guarantee. Strictly speaking, it's not that "technology moves on" but that the current crop of TVs at that level happen to be cheaper than they were when iybyisul bought the set. Put another way, if iybyisul equivalent set now was ten times as expensive, John Lewis would have had to replace the set regardless that it was ten times more expensive.
It is a subtle difference and I don't blame iybyisul for initially feeling miffed that their eleven hundred turned into less than seven hundred.
So, on this point , John Lewis could have done better.
In terms of process if the negotiation had been more exploratory at first I'd like to think that John Lewis would have been a little more flexible. Things change, so maybe agents no longer have the ability to ask their supervisor for a slightly expensive set (as mine did). I can't help feeling however, that in iybyisul's case, once the cycle of perceived information was set, that it became all but impossible for John Lewis to show flexibility.
Final Point
In the past year or so John Lewis dropped their price guarantee. Since the internet and online store, the high street has found itself with dramatically lower margins, higher costs and increased competition. The guarantee that John Lewis offers is, in many cases, well beyond what anyone else offers and I'd bet loses them money in many cases. However, when I can buy an electrical item from John Lewis I always do so - that guarantee is awesome.
What I think was lost in the above example was that iybyisul is a John Lewis customer - not someone to be combatted with but someone who'd engaged with the retailer. With a little more communication I'd like to think that the outcome and the process could have been different. After all, if iybyisul had been better told that the TV would be the same generation replacement that could have transformed the situation.
I do think John Lewis or at least the agent and possibly the agent's supervisor were too stuck in thinking they had given a position and didn't want to be seen as 'backing down.' I also can't help but thinking that iybyisul reacted reasonably to the information but once the information was seen as 'set' by John Lewis - that the attempt to change it was seen as 'not listening' to the information. I think that increased the tension on the calls and could have been de-escalated.
At the end of the day John Lewis want happy paying customers and we want to buy in a friendly and enjoyable manner. The guarantee is another way of cementing that relationship - if it turns into a battle then it kinda defeats part of its point.
I'm glad that this had a happy outcome but just wanted to leave a few thoughts because as iybyisul notes, it could have gone better.
Happy days everyone