Discussion
g15wiz said:
give me six months as your sales director to turn round your company's image.
To be honest, I am not certain that Ginetta Cars Ltd has a bad reputation that needs to be turned around? It would be wrong to speculate without all the facts or hearing their side of the story, and we are short of facts from Hubert, other than that he had some work done on the car in Germany and that the engine had failed, possibly because of a problem with the cooling system, cause unknown.If I bought a G60 (and I would if I had the necessary dosh), I would not want to trek up and down the country for warranty work, but I would get written agreement from Ginetta on who local to me had their approval to complete any necessary warranty work, and I would want that agreement in writing.
G22man said:
To be honest, I am not certain that Ginetta Cars Ltd has a bad reputation that needs to be turned around? It would be wrong to speculate without all the facts or hearing their side of the story, and we are short of facts from Hubert, other than that he had some work done on the car in Germany and that the engine had failed, possibly because of a problem with the cooling system, cause unknown.
If I bought a G60 (and I would .....
deletedIf I bought a G60 (and I would .....
Edited by g15wiz on Tuesday 12th March 18:18
g15wiz said:
Podie said:
If I were LNT I wouldn't respond on a public forum. As it is, this thread is a bit close to the "no name and shame" rules...
I'm relatively new to this....so do 'the rules' mean 'no criticisms of motor car manufacturers allowed, they are verboten, or will be censored'?As one of the quieter parts of PH this seems to have been missed by the powers that be.
Rules of Posting said:
When using this website you agree not to:
...
Name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.
...
Name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.
Edited by Podie on Tuesday 12th March 16:54
'When using this website you agree not to:
...
Name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.'
That seems pretty much like censorship to me. If that rule is taken literally, then no adverse criticism can be made of any company, and it follows that the products of any company cannot be criticised either, since 'brand' and 'company' are often synonymous, as in the case of Ginetta...content can only be 'libellous or defamatory' if factually inaccurate or misleading.
...
Name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.'
That seems pretty much like censorship to me. If that rule is taken literally, then no adverse criticism can be made of any company, and it follows that the products of any company cannot be criticised either, since 'brand' and 'company' are often synonymous, as in the case of Ginetta...content can only be 'libellous or defamatory' if factually inaccurate or misleading.
g15wiz said:
'When using this website you agree not to:
...
Name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.'
That seems pretty much like censorship to me. If that rule is taken literally, then no adverse criticism can be made of any company, and it follows that the products of any company cannot be criticised either, since 'brand' and 'company' are often synonymous, as in the case of Ginetta...content can only be 'libellous or defamatory' if factually inaccurate or misleading.
It's so that PH don't get sued for libel....
Name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.'
That seems pretty much like censorship to me. If that rule is taken literally, then no adverse criticism can be made of any company, and it follows that the products of any company cannot be criticised either, since 'brand' and 'company' are often synonymous, as in the case of Ginetta...content can only be 'libellous or defamatory' if factually inaccurate or misleading.
Not my rules, and I'm not enforcing them.
well, podie, I can see that, I suppose.....lawyers waiting to pounce...shame though!!!
nothing like a good gripe!! somehow "I bought a new **** last week, and it's absolute c**p!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
j
nothing like a good gripe!! somehow "I bought a new **** last week, and it's absolute c**p!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
j
Edited by g15wiz on Tuesday 12th March 17:50
Edited by g15wiz on Tuesday 12th March 17:54
Edited by g15wiz on Tuesday 12th March 17:58
Edited by g15wiz on Tuesday 12th March 18:20
Podie said:
Hope it all works out for you. 
seconded.......good luck, hubert....btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
g15wiz said:
seconded.......good luck, hubert....
btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
I reckon PH are over sensitive on the issue. The opinions voiced are those of the poster not of PH. I suspect its because they are owned by a publishing company that makes the extra sensitive. All of those sites you mention and many others post 3rd party reviews, plus you would have thought that Which must spend their entire lives in court.btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
blueg33 said:
g15wiz said:
seconded.......good luck, hubert....
btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
I reckon PH are over sensitive on the issue. The opinions voiced are those of the poster not of PH. I suspect its because they are owned by a publishing company that makes the extra sensitive. All of those sites you mention and many others post 3rd party reviews, plus you would have thought that Which must spend their entire lives in court.btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
So you can imaging a one man company dont want to or need to deal with that kind of crap, hence forth the naming and shaming rules were introduced.
blueg33 said:
g15wiz said:
seconded.......good luck, hubert....
btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
I reckon PH are over sensitive on the issue. The opinions voiced are those of the poster not of PH. I suspect its because they are owned by a publishing company that makes the extra sensitive. All of those sites you mention and many others post 3rd party reviews, plus you would have thought that Which must spend their entire lives in court.btw, on the naming and shaming issue, how do websites which publish reviews of products get away with it? e.g. amazon, which?, moneysupermarket, etc.....I've seen some pretty raw stuff relating customers' experiences....
I have to say I am gutted to read threads like this one. I posted several times on the Ginetta forums expressing my concerns about the Quality/Reliability challenge for a small company (both Aston and McLaren have suffered despite their substantial resources), really I was hoping that because Ginetta people read these posts that they would heed the advice and prepare the road cars accordingly. The challenge is so much bigger than building a race car, but most people just don't see it that way. Ginetta's Management obviously feel the same way.
Ultimately this is a no win scenario given the current relationship. Hubert has a spent thousands on a car that he is very dissatisfied with and Ginetta are getting a bucketful of bad press, not only about the car but also about the way they deal with customers. There are no winners and I feel equally sorry for both parties here.
I was going to write some suggestions for turning this around, but given that no one who is in a position to fix things is listening, why bother.
Ultimately this is a no win scenario given the current relationship. Hubert has a spent thousands on a car that he is very dissatisfied with and Ginetta are getting a bucketful of bad press, not only about the car but also about the way they deal with customers. There are no winners and I feel equally sorry for both parties here.
I was going to write some suggestions for turning this around, but given that no one who is in a position to fix things is listening, why bother.
Edited by Jellinek on Sunday 17th March 18:34
Gassing Station | Ginetta | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff