Why I won't be buying from PB Tech

Forums › Off topic › Why I won't be buying from PB Tech

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#2162901 18-Jan-2019 08:48

I will just add that those people who say "I will never shop there again" are, in my experience, largely pontificating and likely to go back on their word as soon as a deal is to be had.

The internet makes grandstanding over this sort of thing even easier...

I've lost count of how many times the 'what should I buy' threads end up with the OP stating something along the line of "I ended up buying from Harvey Norman / Noel Leeming / PB Tech / JB HiFi' even though I avoid them out of principle... but they were $43 cheaper and the other guys wouldn't match them".

Money talks, internet bull walks.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2162904 18-Jan-2019 08:53

Talkiet:

In principle you're correct, in practice however there are many situations where the car in front is at fault.

If I am driving a high performance sports car with amazing brakes and great tyres and I SLAM on the brakes at a light the instant it goes amber when I am nearly into the intersection already and the 1980s commodore following a legal distance behind me can't stop (or change lanes due to other traffic), then who is at fault in that single, specific, one off instance?

If you agree the driver behind shouldn't be at fault then now all we're arguing about is in WHICH cases the driver behind could be at fault.

No, I don't agree the driver behind shouldn't be at fault. One of the things you should know about your car is how quickly you can stop. I drive... relatively close to things because I know how quickly my vehicle can come to a halt if I apply the brake pedal hard if necessary. I also observe what's in front of the car in front of me as much as the car in front - you'd be surprised how much extra stopping time you get when you know that you're about to have to start stopping because there's a queue forming that the car you're following is blindly ignoring. This isn't special though - this is the minimum standard the law requires of me. There are no cases where hitting a car in front is deemed to be the driver in front's fault bar one - where they slam their vehicle in reverse (as obviously your stopping distances are a bit irrelevant when the thing you're approaching is closing the gap as well!)

The legal distance isn't a number. The legal distance is "can stop if the thing in front suddenly goes from 60km-0km/hr" so by definition, your example is impossible.

Doesn't mean we can't sympathise with the poor guy in the 80s Commo who rear ends you because you had to stop suddenly for old mate in the Audi who decided red lights were optional for R8 drivers, but unfortunately legally Commo-dude is in the wrong.

Senecio

2710 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2162905 18-Jan-2019 08:53

Talkiet:

In principle you're correct, in practice however there are many situations where the car in front is at fault.

If I am driving a high performance sports car with amazing brakes and great tyres and I SLAM on the brakes at a light the instant it goes amber when I am nearly into the intersection already and the 1980s commodore following a legal distance behind me can't stop (or change lanes due to other traffic), then who is at fault in that single, specific, one off instance?

If you agree the driver behind shouldn't be at fault then now all we're arguing about is in WHICH cases the driver behind could be at fault.

Your analogy simply doesn't support your argument. The driver in front cannot be responsible for the actions of the person following them. It doesn't matter if they slammed on the brakes because a small child stepped out or just because the light turned orange. And it doesn't matter if they can pull up from 60km/h in 7m in a performance care or 17m in a clapped out Hyundai with dodgy brakes. The responsibility of the following driver is to assess the situation and drive accordingly.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2162908 18-Jan-2019 08:57

dafman:

I can't believe what I just saw on TV3 news. PB Tech used dash cam footage of a real accident to promote a dash cam promotion. They did't even bother to censor faces of people involved and even made fun of them as part of the promotion with the tagline: 'how to drop some weight to make a speedy getaway'.

PB Tech didn't bother to respond to TV3's request for comment.

A few months ago there was the Commerce Commission fines for selling extended warranties without giving customers the proper information. And now this.

I'll give them a pass in the foreseeable.

Newshub link here

Stuff link here

I can't believe that there is such a reaction to PBtech using this video. Sure the "drop some weight" tagline is a bit distasteful, but overall it's footage of someone rear-ending a car, then (by the looks of it) abusing or intimidating the driver, then fleeing the scene... Why no uproar about that?

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162913 18-Jan-2019 09:03

Dunnersfella:

I will just add that those people who say "I will never shop there again" are, in my experience, largely pontificating and likely to go back on their word as soon as a deal is to be had.

The internet makes grandstanding over this sort of thing even easier...

I've lost count of how many times the 'what should I buy' threads end up with the OP stating something along the line of "I ended up buying from Harvey Norman / Noel Leeming / PB Tech / JB HiFi' even though I avoid them out of principle... but they were $43 cheaper and the other guys wouldn't match them".

Money talks, internet bull walks.

'In my experience' - perhaps your experience with people is limited.

Not pontificating or grandstanding. I genuinely don't like PB Tech's culture, I won't shop there again.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162921 18-Jan-2019 09:14

raytaylor:

I love advertising with a sense of humor.

I also miss the bond&bond adverts from before that american woman had to go and ruin them.

So do I, it's not the sense of humor I take exception to.

It's that PB Tech surreptitiously published video of members of the public, without their knowledge, and purposely set out to ridicule and belittle them in the process. If they had used actors, then no problem.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2162925 18-Jan-2019 09:25

If you stop buying things based on Ethics, then you may as well stop being a consumer of 99% of products. This is a drop in the Ethical Ocean out there.
Could have been done better, doesn't really matter.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2162928 18-Jan-2019 09:30

dafman:

raytaylor:

I love advertising with a sense of humor.

I also miss the bond&bond adverts from before that american woman had to go and ruin them.

So do I, it's not the sense of humor I take exception to.

It's that PB Tech surreptitiously published video of members of the public, without their knowledge, and purposely set out to ridicule and belittle them in the process. If they had used actors, then no problem.

Members of the public who were knowingly and willingly breaking the law. They clearly had an accident which was their fault. They firstly tried to intimate or berate the driver and then secondly fled the scene...

On that basis - You reap what you sow...

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2162931 18-Jan-2019 09:38

I've been guilty of it, saying I'll never shop somewhere because of something questionable.... then find myself there the next week making a purchase :D

Build a bridge and get over it.

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162934 18-Jan-2019 09:41

I take it silence on the most recent youtube link I posted means minds have been changed?

:-)

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

muppet

2568 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162936 18-Jan-2019 09:43

gosh I was really struggling to find something to be outraged about today.

Glad I found this thread.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2162937 18-Jan-2019 09:44

xpd:

I've been guilty of it, saying I'll never shop somewhere because of something questionable.... then find myself there the next week making a purchase :D

Build a bridge and get over it.

I chose not to shop there again not because of the video but the very poor service and attitude I recieved there, with that in mind their choice of marketing technique does not surprise me. They could build a bridge and up their game if they want my hard earned, tis not I that has to get over it.

reven

3743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162943 18-Jan-2019 09:44

I thought it was funny, i dont like PBTech, but i see nothing wrong with this ad

SirHumphreyAppleby

2844 posts

Uber Geek

#2162944 18-Jan-2019 09:45

xpd:

I've been guilty of it, saying I'll never shop somewhere because of something questionable.... then find myself there the next week making a purchase :D

Build a bridge and get over it.

When I heard about the Bunnings ban on top-loaded onion, my immediate thought was to avoid them and go to Mitre 10 instead. I was actually sitting down waiting for a meal at a restaurant, with Bunnings my next port of call. Bunnings had what I wanted for less, so that's where I went. Principles are all very good, but I'd rather save my money.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2162947 18-Jan-2019 09:48

Talkiet:

I take it silence on the most recent youtube link I posted means minds have been changed?

:-)

N.

not in the slightest

that's an extreme case and also not in nz

and not at all related to the topic at hand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7