Do not believe some hoity-toity columnist who graphically puts her creativity on paper and then throws her credibility in the nearest trash bin available. I hope she was not in a dire situation of submitting an article before she goes well past her deadline.
In her column on news.cnet.com, Marguerite Reardon (famously known as ‘Maggie’ for which her name is as splattered as the column title itself), expresses her apologies to her readers regarding the article she wrote under the headline of “Where to unload your laptop for top dollar”. In it she assembles a chart that shows the readers what websites they can go to get cash for their used iPhones.
One month elapsed, and Maggie pitched in another attention-grabbing article titled “Don’t get scammed when selling your old iPhone”. With it, she rambles on her mistake of misinforming the public by recommending a certain website without doing an initial business reputation check of it. And what is the website that is put in hot water? Cashforiphones.com.
Deplorable as it is to use one’s words against oneself, I want to cite her ‘lovely’ introduction: “I am the first to admit when I am wrong. And indeed, I made a mistake a few weeks ago when I mentioned in this column a certain Web site as a place to sell an old iPhone without checking the reputation of the site mentioned.”
She goes on by delivering the punch:
“In the October 4 edition of Ask Maggie, headlined Where to unload your laptop for top dollar, I listed the Web site CashForiPhones.com as a place to sell a used iPhone. Since then, I've learned from various readers and through my own investigation, that this particular Web site has a reputation for offering customers a high price for their used iPhones and then greatly reducing the offer once the company has possession of the device.”
First of all, I would like to commend Maggie for admitting her mistake in the article which was peppered with profuse apologies. True, she ought to get an A+ in the ethics department; but there are certain things I’d like to point out in defense of Cashforiphones.com.
It was Maggie’s prerogative to retract whatever recommendation she issued previously. After all, it is her job to grab any issue she can yak about and hopefully submit for publication. But to say a certain website is a scam on the sole basis of people’s reactions (which, in the first place, isn’t representative of ALL Cashforiphones customers) is a case of fundamental attribution error.
Complaints may arise against a company but it does not warrant one to conclude that the case affects the whole. As a matter of fact, where would Cashforiphones.com get a 99.97% customer satisfaction rating and the A+ rating from BBB (despite the company not availing of the accreditation)? Between a quantitative data that is difficult to arrive at and a qualitative remark that can be generated anytime, I would go for the verdict which has valid basis.
As a writer, I should not misinterpret what it means to do my duty for humanity. It is good to be on the side of the people, but to lose your own bright right just because you know people will go against you, that is ridiculous.
Given that this concerns a lot of people, why would you even try to feature something that you have not tried yet? Does that give you some sort of vicarious thrill? I hope not.
About the ‘misquoted’ price, sellers are duly asked to provide an objective assessment of their devices. If not, this can lead to getting a price lower than what has been quoted to you. Cashforiphones.com is a recycling company: it does not thrive because its interest is on gaining profit, but in fulfilling its social responsibility. And it is expected that sellers will be honest enough to provide a good evaluation of the gadgets they own. After all, no business flourishes when both company and customers do not reside in integrity.