Of course it makes sense for the consumer to blame the provider if they have an agreed upon deal and the provider cannot execute on it. That's common sense - it isn't specific to pellet stoves.
The dealer has an obligation to "make good" on their commitment. Refunding the deposit months later is akin to welshing on the original deal. If the original terms cannot be met, in this case because a stove simply cannot be had, the deal could be altered to move the delivery date (a concession to the dealer) and adjust the cost (a concession to the consumer). There are other deals that could be made: free services, loaner models, etc.. That would give both parties a chance to agree to a deal they can make good on.
And yes, that costs the dealer money. No matter the industry, that goes along with missing your commitments - there is risk to every deal. Price it in - everybody else does. This is the essence of retail. Like some other young industries, this particular industry seems to be generally undercapitalized, suffers from poor forecasting, and amateurish lines of communication. Improving this will lower the risk and become a competitive advantage over time.
"Making it happen" is what we pay the middle man for. It isn't wrong for blaming the middle man when they can't make it happen.
I have no problem with dealers that would not sell stoves. I have no problem with dealers that sold stoves and were honest that they could not predict a delivery date. I do object to ones that sold them with delivery dates and cannot perform on that. It is not fair to tar all dealers with that brush, but lets not deny the accounts here of folks who were more than happy to take the consumer's money up front and worry about their end of the deal later.
Of course the dealer has a similar complaint with their upstream provider, but this thread is about the consumer. And the manufacturer will not deal with the consumer.
The dealer has an obligation to "make good" on their commitment. Refunding the deposit months later is akin to welshing on the original deal. If the original terms cannot be met, in this case because a stove simply cannot be had, the deal could be altered to move the delivery date (a concession to the dealer) and adjust the cost (a concession to the consumer). There are other deals that could be made: free services, loaner models, etc.. That would give both parties a chance to agree to a deal they can make good on.
And yes, that costs the dealer money. No matter the industry, that goes along with missing your commitments - there is risk to every deal. Price it in - everybody else does. This is the essence of retail. Like some other young industries, this particular industry seems to be generally undercapitalized, suffers from poor forecasting, and amateurish lines of communication. Improving this will lower the risk and become a competitive advantage over time.
"Making it happen" is what we pay the middle man for. It isn't wrong for blaming the middle man when they can't make it happen.
I have no problem with dealers that would not sell stoves. I have no problem with dealers that sold stoves and were honest that they could not predict a delivery date. I do object to ones that sold them with delivery dates and cannot perform on that. It is not fair to tar all dealers with that brush, but lets not deny the accounts here of folks who were more than happy to take the consumer's money up front and worry about their end of the deal later.
Of course the dealer has a similar complaint with their upstream provider, but this thread is about the consumer. And the manufacturer will not deal with the consumer.