Who is ultimately responsible for group buys?

[livingspeedbump]

It seems there are quite a few different opinion on who is ultimate responsible for a group buy. By that I mean making sure everyone that paid receives what they paid for, or is completely refunded, bringing the buy to 100% completion one way or another. I am genuinely curious what people think about this. Is it different for individuals/vendors/companies?

EDIT: masby left a really good response on the current status of group buys that I will leave in the OP, but please don't see this as a reason to stop discussing if you have something to say!

This is a good topic! Thank you livingspeedbump for kicking off this thread because there are a lot of nuances here.

Group buys have definitely evolved since I got started with GeekHack. It used to be that they were only run by individuals. These days we have individuals (IvanIvanovich), Co-ops (CTRLAlt), companies (MassDrop) and even Manufacturers (PimpMyKeyboard) running them, so the lines have definitely become blurred as to responsibility.

Your question also hits the nail on the head though, because on top of the various types of GBs there's the buyer's perception and how that colors their expectations of the group buy. Here's mine.

Manufacturers
This is the easiest since we're purchasing directly from the source. If there's an issue/problem, then it's only the manufacturer that can make it right. That's not to say that it's going to be an ideal and perfect buying experience for everyone, but major issues should definitely be addressed.

Companies
I perceive MassDrop as a business - their business is running group buys and they seek to make a profit from doing so. Ultimately they are responsible for the outcome of any group buy they run. I expect a more professional experience and I'm less tolerant if the ultimate outcome is different than what was promised.

I also expect that they are more capable of resolving issues with manufacturers for no other reason than the fact that they can leverage their buying power and their long standing relationship with the manufacturer. Their buying power and influence is more substantial than an individual who is doing a one-time buy.

Co-ops
This is a weird hybrid that pertains only to CTRLAlt at this point in time. They are technically a group of individuals cooperatively working together to run various group buys, but on it's face they appear to be a business. BunnyLake has taken on risk to reach certain MOQs in the past and he's gone out-of-pocket to resolve issues with other partners have gone MIA, but it's not as transparent of a transaction as an individual running a group buy. I'm not saying that CTRLAlt needs to be more transparent, it's just that because of these factors, it feels more like a business than an individual.

That being said, I view a CTRLAlt group buy the same as I would a group buy from an individual.

Individuals
I give these types of group buys the greatest of leeway, because I know that it's a single individual that is volunteering their time. If there's an option to add a donation, I do, because I know that there are going to be additional costs that weren't expected and I know that it's going to take WAY more time than the leader has planned.

If there is an issue -- and there almost always will be -- I expect that the leader will communicate that and do their best to resolve it. However, since they aren't a business, it's one person doing what they can to resolve it and I don't expect them to move mountains, or refund my money. They have no more influence than I do when talking with another company.

These types of group buys are also the riskiest. As a buyer, I'm entrusting an individual to handle a large sum of money, conduct a large transaction with one, or multiple vendors and then process one large delivery into individual orders and ship them timely. That is a lot of responsibly for just one person.

Group buys typically take months to complete and a lot can change over that time. I was personally bit by the group buy curse when distributing the Commando 23 key cap set, so I expect that real-life will get in the way and that there will be delays.

Bottom line: individual run group buys are the riskiest and I give them the most leeway for delays and problems.

[joey]

Is it anyone but the GB leader?

[livingspeedbump]

Is it anyone but the GB leader?

in some buys, when things go south, or someone (other than the gb leader) flakes out, they get the blame. Is it their fault, is it the GB leaders fault for working with them in the first place?

When something like TA happens, some of the issues clearly weren't Massdrops fault, but end of the day it was fully their responsibility to get sorted out i feel like, for example.

I tend to think the person/company running a GB, or whoever took the money, is ultimately responsible. Not everyone thinks that way though.

[BrewCaps]

Whoever took the money is responsible.

Otherwise it is considered "undelivered goods", aka theft no matter IF your dog got run over or other lame excuses.

[ideus]

MD drops are not exactly a GBs, MD is a commercial endevour that takes a share on the sales, therefore they should be accountable for what happens with the final delivery. In the other side a GB is led by a GB initiator that I think should be accountable for the products to reach the GB participants, unless she has stated otherwise upfront, so people joining may get their minds on the risk share they are assuming.

[HoffmanMyster]

The GB leader is "responsible".

But assigning blame for things gone wrong depends entirely on context.

If we end up with something other than what we paid for, who is to blame?  Did the organizer order the wrong thing, lose pieces, or somehow damage them (poor shipping, etc)?  Then it's their fault.  Did the manufacturer botch production and either ship faulty product or cause delays?  Then it's their fault.

I don't think we need to have a be-all end-all fault-assigning system that can be universally applied - I think we're fine acting on a case-by-case basis, no?

("we" in this case is the community, not the mod team)

[noisyturtle]

Whoever had the money last.

[inanis]

Is it anyone but the GB leader?

in some buys, when things go south, or someone (other than the gb leader) flakes out, they get the blame. Is it their fault, is it the GB leaders fault for working with them in the first place?

When something like TA happens, some of the issues clearly weren't Massdrops fault, but end of the day it was fully their responsibility to get sorted out i feel like, for example.

I tend to think the person/company running a GB, or whoever took the money, is ultimately responsible. Not everyone thinks that way though.

From a customer perspective, whoever takes my money is responsible to make it right. Period.

However, I do expect where ever the issues exists along the supply chain to ultimately fix the problem in the big picture. Meaning, if GMK has a manufacturing defect, it is up to GMK to fix the issue. From the perspective as a customer, I only expect to deal with MD. And I expect MD to have enough extra's on hand to quickly deal with replacements as needed. That won't account for every issue perhaps, but a reasonable amount. I expect GMK to make MD "whole" and ultimately fix their manufacturing defect, or provide an appropriate refund to cover the loss.

So, murky answer, I know, but when you deal with multiple middlemen things get a bit into a grey area. It all depends on where the issues exist and the context of the problem. But at the end of the day, if I pay you, you better help fix it!

[livingspeedbump]

The GB leader is "responsible".

But assigning blame for things gone wrong depends entirely on context.

If we end up with something other than what we paid for, who is to blame?  Did the organizer order the wrong thing, lose pieces, or somehow damage them (poor shipping, etc)?  Then it's their fault.  Did the manufacturer botch production and either ship faulty product or cause delays?  Then it's their fault.

I don't think we need to have a be-all end-all fault-assigning system that can be universally applied - I think we're fine acting on a case-by-case basis, no?

("we" in this case is the community, not the mod team)

Yeah, this can be tricky. Like the swirls in TA. Was that GMK`s fault, or ultimately MD for not asking for samples to double check them first?

Some are more clear cut. With Jukebox, for example, SP made one novelty the wrong size. It was entirely their fault, but MD still made sure it was fixed in a week or two.

I don't think there is a clear cut answer to this, I was merely looking to see what people thought about it out of curiosity. I don't even have a clear cut opinion in some circumstances myself even.

Just as a general rule, im still under the opinion that whoever I paid money to is ultimately responsible for seeing that i am refunded/receive what i paid for.

[ideus]

Is it anyone but the GB leader?

in some buys, when things go south, or someone (other than the gb leader) flakes out, they get the blame. Is it their fault, is it the GB leaders fault for working with them in the first place?

When something like TA happens, some of the issues clearly weren't Massdrops fault, but end of the day it was fully their responsibility to get sorted out i feel like, for example.

I tend to think the person/company running a GB, or whoever took the money, is ultimately responsible. Not everyone thinks that way though.

From a customer perspective, whoever takes my money is responsible to make it right. Period.

However, I do expect where ever the issues exists along the supply chain to ultimately fix the problem in the big picture. Meaning, if GMK has a manufacturing defect, it is up to GMK to fix the issue. From the perspective as a customer, I only expect to deal with MD. And I expect MD to have enough extra's on hand to quickly deal with replacements as needed. That won't account for every issue perhaps, but a reasonable amount. I expect GMK to make MD "whole" and ultimately fix their manufacturing defect, or provide an appropriate refund to cover the loss.

So, murky answer, I know, but when you deal with multiple middlemen things get a bit into a grey area. It all depends on where the issues exist and the context of the problem. But at the end of the day, if I pay you, you better help fix it!

Again, MD drop is not the same as community group buys run by individuals.

[livingspeedbump]

Is it anyone but the GB leader?

in some buys, when things go south, or someone (other than the gb leader) flakes out, they get the blame. Is it their fault, is it the GB leaders fault for working with them in the first place?

When something like TA happens, some of the issues clearly weren't Massdrops fault, but end of the day it was fully their responsibility to get sorted out i feel like, for example.

I tend to think the person/company running a GB, or whoever took the money, is ultimately responsible. Not everyone thinks that way though.

From a customer perspective, whoever takes my money is responsible to make it right. Period.

However, I do expect where ever the issues exists along the supply chain to ultimately fix the problem in the big picture. Meaning, if GMK has a manufacturing defect, it is up to GMK to fix the issue. From the perspective as a customer, I only expect to deal with MD. And I expect MD to have enough extra's on hand to quickly deal with replacements as needed. That won't account for every issue perhaps, but a reasonable amount. I expect GMK to make MD "whole" and ultimately fix their manufacturing defect, or provide an appropriate refund to cover the loss.

So, murky answer, I know, but when you deal with multiple middlemen things get a bit into a grey area. It all depends on where the issues exist and the context of the problem. But at the end of the day, if I pay you, you better help fix it!

yeah, i just saw this after my last reply. this is a great example, because it was so unclear who was at fault. I think realistically the fault was split in quite a few ways there. But i do generally agree that whoever you pay, is responsible. So in this case MD was responsible to deliver the TA set that you paid for to you, in the condition that was expected. On their end, they paid GMK, who botched some manufacturing, so GMK should have been held responsible by MD to fix the issues and deliver. At least that is kind of how I see it, again, very murky indeed.

[inanis]

Again, MD drop is not the same as community group buys run by individuals.

I was just using at as an easy example to say that if there is a supply chain, you have to take that into account. Regardless of who the middle man is.

Like, if I join a GB for LEDs, and the LED manufacture has a defect with all the yellow LEDs, I expect them to fix the defect and make the GB runner whole. Perhaps that is a better example.

[trizkut]

The GB leader is "responsible".

But assigning blame for things gone wrong depends entirely on context.

If we end up with something other than what we paid for, who is to blame?  Did the organizer order the wrong thing, lose pieces, or somehow damage them (poor shipping, etc)?  Then it's their fault.  Did the manufacturer botch production and either ship faulty product or cause delays?  Then it's their fault.

I don't think we need to have a be-all end-all fault-assigning system that can be universally applied - I think we're fine acting on a case-by-case basis, no?

("we" in this case is the community, not the mod team)

Yeah, this can be tricky. Like the swirls in TA. Was that GMK`s fault, or ultimately MD for not asking for samples to double check them first?

Some are more clear cut. With Jukebox, for example, SP made one novelty the wrong size. It was entirely their fault, but MD still made sure it was fixed in a week or two.

I don't think there is a clear cut answer to this, I was merely looking to see what people thought about it out of curiosity. I don't even have a clear cut opinion in some circumstances myself even.

Just as a general rule, im still under the opinion that whoever I paid money to is ultimately responsible for seeing that i am refunded/receive what i paid for.

Swirls were GMK's fault.  One could say that MD should have checked the sets, but QC should primarily be GMK's concern.  It looks bad on their end when they deliver product not up to their usual quality standards.  The shipping problems I'd say lies with MD, though.  Regardless of how the  sets may have arrived from GMK when all stacked together, MD should have at least tested their packaging to see how a single set would fare with that minimal taping to secure the top and bottom halves of the case.  And of course, when the replacements were packaged in the exact same way and met the same jumbled fate, that also falls on MD.  When your primary job is shipping packages to customers, everything inside should be packaged 'bombproof'

[livingspeedbump]

Is it anyone but the GB leader?

in some buys, when things go south, or someone (other than the gb leader) flakes out, they get the blame. Is it their fault, is it the GB leaders fault for working with them in the first place?

When something like TA happens, some of the issues clearly weren't Massdrops fault, but end of the day it was fully their responsibility to get sorted out i feel like, for example.

I tend to think the person/company running a GB, or whoever took the money, is ultimately responsible. Not everyone thinks that way though.

From a customer perspective, whoever takes my money is responsible to make it right. Period.

However, I do expect where ever the issues exists along the supply chain to ultimately fix the problem in the big picture. Meaning, if GMK has a manufacturing defect, it is up to GMK to fix the issue. From the perspective as a customer, I only expect to deal with MD. And I expect MD to have enough extra's on hand to quickly deal with replacements as needed. That won't account for every issue perhaps, but a reasonable amount. I expect GMK to make MD "whole" and ultimately fix their manufacturing defect, or provide an appropriate refund to cover the loss.

So, murky answer, I know, but when you deal with multiple middlemen things get a bit into a grey area. It all depends on where the issues exist and the context of the problem. But at the end of the day, if I pay you, you better help fix it!

Again, MD drop is not the same as community group buys run by individuals.

Eh, you could debate that but really a lot of what they do is facilitate group buys.  They handled the Jukebox logistics for me, but at the end of the day it was a group buy, regardless if i did it from the forums or if MD ran it.

[ideus]

I may be wrong, but I understand a GB as a community effort to get something we want and someone takes the lead to get it from a third party, MD does it for a profit and it is a company with employees and some resources, I do not see the two as the same thing. Some insider may enlighten us on this.

[livingspeedbump]

I may be wrong, but I understand a GB as a community effort to get something we want and someone takes the lead to get it from a third party, MD does it for a profit and it is a company with employees and some resources, I do not see the two as the same thing. Some insider may enlighten us on this.

Interesting. I see it differently. I see it as simply someone/group/company that organizes the funds to purchase items in bulk. The organizer is the liaison between the group and the manufacturer. Obviously this is done to either meet MOQ, or hopefully lower the cost of the items for all involved. The actual act of someone (be it a company or individual) placing a large order on behalf of the participants, and then dealing with the logistics and getting the product to the individual participants is what i consider to be a Group Buy.

[ideus]

In the case of Jukebox, who was the responsible for the GB?

[Steezus]

In the case of Jukebox, who was the responsible for the GB?

Well LSB organized it but Massdrop ran it, I say whoever takes the money assumes the responsibility of making sure everyone receives what they paid for.

[livingspeedbump]

In the case of Jukebox, who was the responsible for the GB?

Massdrop. I created the design, but logistics, shipping, handling of all money, etc was ALL Massdrop.

It would be the same way if someone created a keycap set, and CTRLalt ran it. The designer, is just that, a designer. CTRLalt would be responsible for all logistics if the designer just passed the design to them, and they took up the money. Same with UKK Keycaps, or other gb style websites.

[vivalarevolución]

The West.  Or Muslims.  Depends upon what kind of people you decide to scapegoat for your problems.

[jaffers]

Who ever takes the money is responsible for the group buy, if that is someone other than the leader than there is a problem. If something goes wrong it should be the leader who fixes things.

[FLFisherman]

I agree with the majority here. The leader of the group buy is responsible, no matter what happens. There shouldn't be any excuses or any lack of communication. You don't like the responsibility? Don't volunteer to be the group leader!!

I have seen a lot of incredible group buys on GeekHack, both good incredible and bad incredible. Y'all should know which is which.

[SL89]

The group buy leader is always responsible. And as ripster always says: caveat emptor! buyer beware. If it sounds too good to be true it is!

[mashby]

This is a good topic! Thank you livingspeedbump for kicking off this thread because there are a lot of nuances here.

Group buys have definitely evolved since I got started with GeekHack. It used to be that they were only run by individuals. These days we have individuals (IvanIvanovich), Co-ops (CTRLAlt), companies (MassDrop) and even Manufacturers (PimpMyKeyboard) running them, so the lines have definitely become blurred as to responsibility.

Your question also hits the nail on the head though, because on top of the various types of GBs there's the buyer's perception and how that colors their expectations of the group buy. Here's mine.

Manufacturers
This is the easiest since we're purchasing directly from the source. If there's an issue/problem, then it's only the manufacturer that can make it right. That's not to say that it's going to be an ideal and perfect buying experience for everyone, but major issues should definitely be addressed.

Companies
I perceive MassDrop as a business - their business is running group buys and they seek to make a profit from doing so. Ultimately they are responsible for the outcome of any group buy they run. I expect a more professional experience and I'm less tolerant if the ultimate outcome is different than what was promised.

I also expect that they are more capable of resolving issues with manufacturers for no other reason than the fact that they can leverage their buying power and their long standing relationship with the manufacturer. Their buying power and influence is more substantial than an individual who is doing a one-time buy.

Co-ops
This is a weird hybrid that pertains only to CTRLAlt at this point in time. They are technically a group of individuals cooperatively working together to run various group buys, but on it's face they appear to be a business. BunnyLake has taken on risk to reach certain MOQs in the past and he's gone out-of-pocket to resolve issues with other partners have gone MIA, but it's not as transparent of a transaction as an individual running a group buy. I'm not saying that CTRLAlt needs to be more transparent, it's just that because of these factors, it feels more like a business than an individual.

That being said, I view a CTRLAlt group buy the same as I would a group buy from an individual.

Individuals
I give these types of group buys the greatest of leeway, because I know that it's a single individual that is volunteering their time. If there's an option to add a donation, I do, because I know that there are going to be additional costs that weren't expected and I know that it's going to take WAY more time than the leader has planned.

If there is an issue -- and there almost always will be -- I expect that the leader will communicate that and do their best to resolve it. However, since they aren't a business, it's one person doing what they can to resolve it and I don't expect them to move mountains, or refund my money. They have no more influence than I do when talking with another company.

These types of group buys are also the riskiest. As a buyer, I'm entrusting an individual to handle a large sum of money, conduct a large transaction with one, or multiple vendors and then process one large delivery into individual orders and ship them timely. That is a lot of responsibly for just one person.

Group buys typically take months to complete and a lot can change over that time. I was personally bit by the group buy curse when distributing the Commando 23 key cap set, so I expect that real-life will get in the way and that there will be delays.

Bottom line: individual run group buys are the riskiest and I give them the most leeway for delays and problems.

[ideus]

Thank you Mashby for the great explanation, I agree that individuals have to have more freedom regarding full responsibility because they run the buys in behalf of others taking the load on their backs. Still, they have to communicate well and do their part of the process.

[livingspeedbump]

Very, very good answer mashby, thanks for the nice thought through reply. 

I think you nailed it on the head when you mentioned that GB's were pretty much all run via forums by individuals for a while. I think that while they have evolved a good bit, its just taking all of us individuals time to all get on the same page about what group buys are, and who is responsible, which is hard to do when they are constantly evolving.

[ideus]

Very, very good answer mashby, thanks for the nice thought through reply. 

I think you nailed it on the head when you mentioned that GB's were pretty much all run via forums by individuals for a while. I think that while they have evolved a good bit, its just taking all of us individuals time to all get on the same page about what group buys are, and who is responsible, which is hard to do when they are constantly evolving.

You may want to copy Mashby explanation to the OP, it pretty much explains the current state of affairs on GBs.

[livingspeedbump]

Very, very good answer mashby, thanks for the nice thought through reply. 

I think you nailed it on the head when you mentioned that GB's were pretty much all run via forums by individuals for a while. I think that while they have evolved a good bit, its just taking all of us individuals time to all get on the same page about what group buys are, and who is responsible, which is hard to do when they are constantly evolving.

You may want to copy Mashby explanation to the OP, it pretty much explains the current state of affairs on GBs.

Good suggestion. Done 

[Vittra]

Agreed. Mashby's write-up is a very succinct explanation that describes the context for each type of buy present in the current day, as well as what a reasonable expectation of each is.

[BrewCaps]

Interesting discussion but doubt it will change anything.

[HoffmanMyster]

Interesting discussion but doubt it will change anything.

Thanks for the contribution.

[livingspeedbump]

Interesting discussion but doubt it will change anything.

I'm not trying to change anything. I was just genuinely curious what people thought on this.

[Badwrench]

Interesting discussion but doubt it will change anything.

I actually don't agree that this discussion won't change anything.  The mere fact of having feedback from both people that have run the old school style GB and the more updated hybrid buys (I am grouping the other 3 types here for simplicity) will give new buyers a much better perspective on what to expect and to how where they want to put their money.  I agree with masby about the individual run GB being a bit  more of a gamble and that you may experience significant delays or outright loss of funds if the person does a no show after $$ collection.

[livingspeedbump]

I agree with masby about the individual run GB being a bit  more of a gamble and that you may experience significant delays or outright loss of funds if the person does a no show after $$ collection.

Yeah, I do as well. I think it is safe to assume that you should be safe buying a product from a company, like Massdrop, either in terms of getting what you paid for or getting a refund. With the Hybrid/Individuals it is always a risk, and I have always thought that you shouldnt join one of those group buys if you cant afford to loose that money. Yes, that will suck, but the chances of it happening are relatively high in comparison. I think it is important to mention though that nearly all of the times they do go south, there is not malicious intent behind it. People get overwhelmed, aren't responsible enough to handle it, personal life, etc, etc.

I think the Toxic GB is a relatively good example here. 2 years later and people are still missing their sets/cables. This wasn't directly the fault of any of the CTRLalt team. Bunny was mentioning selling stuff/using personal funds to finish this group buy. Data recently made a few good comments about getting some real numbers and seeing if it made sense just to ask everyone for a bit more money to help get this buy over. While I agree, in a sense, that CTRLalt is responsible for this, as a community I would not be against helping an "individual" by shelling out a few more dollars. Hell, I'd probably shell out a few if a GB leader asked (now speaking more generically) just to help out the community, because community is very important here. I mean, I don't want any member here to be forced to sell their personal stuff. Obviously this is NOT something I would do for a Company. But communication! is the key to this, and without good, honest communication things like this just don't happen. But to me, just having that constant, honest, upfront communication would totally change the frustration level on so many of these buys that go south, and in the end wouldnt end up being a "bad mark" on that GB leaders slate, imo.

[Vittra]

Perhaps the one additional thing that needs to be touched upon, or more accurately stressed, is that a group-buy is no different than supporting a indiegogo/kickstarter project - it carries an inherent risk that you may never receive what you have paid for. You are, in good faith, putting forth money for the possibility of receiving something in the future. If you aren't willing to accept this risk, you are safer not participating.

This does not absolve the burden of responsibility organizers have of ensuring everyone is taken care of, but when you are dealing with individuals and not corporations and there are international transactions are occurring, there is no "official" culpability beyond ostracizing and blacklisting individuals that scam the communities they are part of.

[mashby]

Perhaps the one additional thing that needs to be touched upon, or more accurately stressed, is that a group-buy is no different than supporting a indiegogo/kickstarter project - it carries an inherent risk that you may never receive what you have paid for. You are, in good faith, putting forth money for the possibility of receiving something in the future. If you aren't willing to accept this risk, you are safer not participating.

This does not absolve the burden of responsibility organizers have of ensuring everyone is taken care of, but when you are dealing with individuals and not corporations and there are international transactions are occurring, there is no "official" culpability beyond ostracizing and blacklisting individuals that scam the communities they are part of.

Excellent point. The same level of risk exists in any hybrid/individual group buy as in any crowd-funded endeavor.

[Eugene45]

Hello, for me it goes so :

For me either party are an entity.

The Manufacturers is an entity therefore he is responsible for the group buy.

The Companies is an entity therefore he is responsible for the group buy.

The Co-ops is an entity therefore he is responsible for the group buy.

If you take the CTralt exemple, yes you have many individuals but people always talk about the entity therefore they view it so.

The Individuals is an entity therefore he is responsible for the group buy.

There is no Pierre Paul Jacques either an entity.
An entity who run a group buy.
An entity that i trust with my money.
An entity who would have to build trust.
An entity who shoud communicate.
For me there is not any riskier Gb, as someone say view it as an kickstarter.
If you dont want that, dont participate in a GB. Buy the set from someone in the classifieds.

Have a nice day.