Evaluating warranty processes: A case study
Disclaimer: This article is based on my experience with a specific customer service interaction involving a footwear brand. The research, analysis and conclusions are my own and are informed by my perceptions and interpretation of the events. While this article critiques aspects of my experience with the brand’s warranty process, it is not intended as a definitive statement on the company’s overall practices or customer service standards. It reflects one perspective and highlights lessons in customer experience and brand alignment. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Canadian Marketing Association or any affiliated organizations. Readers are encouraged to consider this essay a subjective account rather than a thorough evaluation of the company or its operations.
This case study outlines the timeline, challenges and implications of interacting with the customer service department of a footwear brand, concerning a warranty claim. The intent is to objectively analyze how a well-known brand’s customer support processes align with its implied commitments.
The brand in question markets itself with a tagline that evokes imagery of freedom, innovation and dependability. However, my experience with their warranty process presented a different perspective—one marked by rigid policies, limited flexibility, and a questionable commitment to customer satisfaction.
Timeline of events
- July 2024: A pair of running shoes was purchased for regular use. Runners are typically expected to last several months, if not years, depending on how often they are used.
- September 2024: The rubber on the shoes' soles began to peel off and deteriorate prematurely. This defect indicated a flaw in the material, design or manufacturing.
- October 2024: A warranty claim was initiated. The brand’s warranty policy states that it covers product defects, which raised hopes that the issue would be resolved quickly.
Challenges with the warranty process
1. Limited replacement options
The brand’s initial response was to offer a replacement product valued at $155 or less—the original purchase price. Unfortunately, the specific model was no longer available, and the alternatives within the allowed price range did not match the quality or functionality of the original pair.
My request was denied outright when I suggested covering the difference for a more suitable model. According to the company, their system is unable to process such exceptions. This leaves customers without viable solutions when the exact product is unavailable.
2. Rigid policies over customer satisfaction
The customer service team consistently emphasized that their policies and systems did not permit flexibility, even in exceptional situations. Representatives were polite but lacked the authority or tools to offer creative solutions to address legitimate concerns.
This strict adherence to rules, while ensuring consistency, overlooked the realities of customer experience, especially when dealing with defective products.
3. Escalation without resolution
Efforts to escalate the issue to higher authorities produced no significant outcomes. Supervisors could merely restate existing policies, providing no options for exceptions or alternative solutions. This interaction underscored a company structure where customer service teams lacked the authority to act in the best interest of client satisfaction.
Observations on the approach to customer service
The management of this warranty claim highlighted several significant elements of the company’s customer service model:
- Transactional focus: The process seemed transactional, aimed at resolving issues within the limits of predefined policies rather than addressing the root cause or ensuring customer satisfaction.
- Policy-driven rigidity: While policies are vital for operational consistency, an excessively rigid approach can alienate customers, particularly when exceptions are necessary.
- Missed opportunities for brand loyalty: By not addressing the situation flexibly, the chance to turn a frustrated customer into a loyal advocate was missed.
More significant implications for customer experience and brand perception
This experience raises broader questions regarding the alignment between the company’s branding and operational practices:
1. Are defective products adequately addressed?
Customers expect a warranty process to resolve disputes fairly when products fail prematurely. Offering only lower quality replacements without flexibility to accommodate reasonable requests undermines trust in the brand.
2. What does “equivalent value” truly mean?
The company’s definition of “equivalent value” appears to be limited to monetary cost. However, customers evaluate replacement products based on performance, design and overall satisfaction—not just price.
3. Does the brand value customer loyalty?
The absence of exceptions for unique cases, coupled with a lack of proactive solutions, suggests that the company’s current policies prioritize internal processes over long-term customer relationships.
Recommendations for improvement
If the company seeks to align its practices with its branding, various changes could enhance the customer experience. Suggested changes include:
1. Empower customer service representatives
Representatives ought to possess the authority to make reasonable exceptions, such as providing partial refunds, store credits, or upgrades with cost-sharing when suitable.
2. Re-evaluate replacement policies
When exact replacements are unavailable, offering comparable products based on performance rather than just price would better align with customer expectations.
3. Enhance escalation protocols
Supervisors and senior representatives should have the authority to bypass standard policies in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that customers feel their concerns are acknowledged and appreciated.
Brand and CX expectations and considerations
Customers are looking for brands to provide experiences that they can trust. Customers want to feel they are valued. They want the organization and employees to empathize with their circumstances. How brands show empathy for what the customer is going through can make or break loyalty.
Alessandra Bisaillon, Head of Marketing and Media Relations at Farm Boy and Co-Chair of the CMA’s CX Council, shares that this can be achieved with a sustainable CX service design framework, as outlined below:
Researching: Ensuring research evolves and is ongoing within an organization is key, in order to understand what will work for modifying or re-designing experiences and to identify changes over time.
Finding leadership alignment: This needs to happen across all functions of the organization. While it’s true that most experiences are delivered by the front-line, without leadership alignment from the top down, newly designed experiences will not be successfully implemented and maintained.
Operationalizing: Customer experience needs to be a focus at all levels of the organization – backstage as well as front stage. So, whether it’s regular CX meetings or other initiatives, each area of the business needs to be accountable and measured on CX.
Measuring: It’s important to understand the ROI of delivering the right experiences to your customers – ROCXI (Return on Customer Experience Investment). Each function in an organization will have its own KPIs and metrics, and these need to be analyzed against CX metrics. Measurement of brand affinity, brand love, NPS, basket size, traffic counts and more, can show the impact that your service delivery is having.
Sustaining: This applies across all functions. It’s vital to know when you need to re-evaluate or tweak the experiences you are delivering as a brand.
Conclusion
This brand positions itself as a leader in innovation and reliability; however, my experience with its warranty process reveals a fundamental disconnect between brand promise and customer reality. CX isn't merely a support function – it serves as a core pillar of brand equity, influencing how consumers perceive, trust and engage with a brand over time. When CX aligns with a company’s core values, it nurtures brand love, advocacy and long-term loyalty. Conversely, when it falls short, it undermines credibility and erodes customer relationships.
At its core, brand strategy is about creating and sustaining emotional connections. Every touchpoint, particularly moments of friction, is an opportunity to reinforce trust and deepen loyalty. A well-handled warranty claim can transform frustration into devotion, demonstrating that the company values its customers and stands behind its products. However, brand affinity suffers when policies are rigid, communication is impersonal, and resolutions feel transactional rather than relational.
This case study does not examine the overall quality of the company’s products or whether this defect was an anomaly. Instead, it highlights a critical inflection point at which the company had an opportunity to create a joyous brand moment – and missed it.
The most successful brands recognize that CX is an investment rather than a cost. By reevaluating the approach to service design, empowering customer teams to act in accordance with brand values, and ensuring that every interaction reinforces the brand story, this company has the potential to cultivate stronger, more resilient customer relationships.
In today’s competitive market, customers do not merely choose products – they select brands that resonate with them. Ensuring that each interaction supports and enhances that connection distinguishes brands that simply exist from those that thrive.
Author: Bruce Symbalisty
Contributor: Alessandra Bisaillon, Head of Marketing and Media Relations, Farm Boy
Addendum:
(1) While researching for this article, I found that my experience with the brand’s warranty process is not unique. Other customers have reported similar frustrations across various social channels regarding rigid policies, limited replacement options, and a lack of flexibility in resolving warranty claims. While this article reflects my personal experience, it highlights a broader trend that indicates an opportunity for the brand to reassess its approach to customer service and warranty resolutions.
(2) A final note: After what can only be described as an endurance test of patience and persistence, the customer service saga took an unexpected turn. In an email response, they finally confirmed a resolution—but not before mistakenly calling me “Brandon” instead of “Bruce.” While this may have been a simple oversight, it reinforced a theme I had encountered throughout: A lack of attention to detail.
The resolution came with a surprising twist. Customer service informed me that, as an international client, I was eligible for a full refund of the purchase price. This felt like a policy shift, yet it was framed as a newfound understanding rather than an admission of a change in stance. Regardless, they processed the refund, and the ordeal finally ended.
In hindsight, the $155 I initially spent on the shoes was the best money I’ve ever spent—not because of the product itself but because of the invaluable lessons it taught me. Though comical at times, the entire experience became a rich case study in customer experience, brand alignment, and the significance of human connection in business.
