Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Cashforiphones: A Scam? No Way!

                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, 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?

            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 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

            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 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. 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.


  1. I understand the writer of this article. Some writers just don't live by their journalism ethics and let their creative vehicles be manipulated by external malicious forces like money, popularity, and inordinate desire for power.

    I hope our writers, who should be doing their moral obligations to others,will stick to their own good dogmas. Nothing more, nothing less.

  2. Wait, I don't get it... I sold my iPhone months ago to this website and got paid for it... and now it's a Scam? Sir, it's 100% Legit... It's not a stupid scam..

  3. So, Miss Maggie thought the website had a good deal (not reading the fine print). When people followed her advice they didn’t read the fine print either. Wanting to save face, she retracts her statement and writes a bad review, following the opinion of opinionated people. Well, opinionated people, let me explain what really happened. CashforiPhones just tried to simplify their website too much that’s all. Instead of having many choices to describe your phone, they simplified it to either working or not. There was nowhere for you to explain that there were scratches on the back, or that there were a few lagging programs. Or even that you knew it was dirty because it had been sitting in a drawer for the past few months. Without those options, of course the phone powered on and worked fine. Without the gray area between working and not (which reduces the value of the phone) there was a disconnect of expectations. That was why you got called back and were told that the quote would be less than you expected. That was why you felt gypped. When you felt gypped, you got mad and wrote bad reviews. It’s not a matter of whether it’s a scam or not. It’s a matter of miscommunication. CashforiPhones wants to advertise their best bargains and not their stipulations. You didn’t read the fine print because it was hard to find in all that simplicity and… Woops. Two unhappy parties. It’s both y’all’s fault so who is to blame? I think Miss Maggie needs to find her own opinions, CashforiPhones needs to offer more description options and you need to stop complaining. You did, after all, just sell a phone that no one else would buy. You realize that, right?