I know the shop you speak of, only in print though. It left me feeling the same way you did. It’s one thing to offer a warranty based on a talk with the customer to make sure their tank meets the fish’s needs. It’s another to sell the fish like a cellphone with out a care in the world as to what happens to it.

I won’t buy online. Learned my lesson on that one. the warranty they offer actually makes them money! Who buys one item and pays 50-75 dollars in shipping if they don’t meet the free shipping limit? hardly anyone. They know this. So I bought 250 dollars worth to get free shipping. Fish arrived with one DOA. E-mailed proof and got credit for the one fish… Guess what I had to do to make using that credit worth while. But 250 bucks with again (with the 15 dollar credit going towards it).

Very few of the online fish sellers ever see or care for the fish. They are dropped shipped out of a wholesaler in LA. 

“It suggests that marine livestock, corals and fish, be simply viewed as disposable, replaceable merchandise. ”

Unfortunately I think this is already the perception by a majority of those who keep fish/corals.   We as hobbyists who think twice about something like this probably are considered the elite in the hobby, even the most newbish amongst us is probably an “elite reefkeeper” compared to most others.

That said, I know the ones around my neck of the woods tend to buy from the bottom basement stores (cheapest, and most questionable) I doubt they’d want to pony up the bucks to pay more for guarantee/insurance.

That said it would be interesting to see a follow up to see what the “return” rate happens to be on those who buy insurance (assuming the LFS is keeping track)

this is a bad idea an never works well anyway. I qt all of my livestock so that I know they are healthy. but its impossible for me to know the condition of your tank so how do I know you don’t acclimate them properly, or they your salinity isn’t too low or two high or that your tank has a electrical leak. or leave it in your car on a hot ay while you did some quick shopping. on certain occasions, we will replace a fish, but this reminds me of the lady who pick up a puffer from us that we had for a month, which died the next day. we replaced it and the second one died within 24 hours. we refused to replace the second one. 

He should do his research better before he slanders people.  I know the store that in question and on the site it clearly says the insurance policy is for “in store only”, so his rant about the faceless internet based business is completely unfounded.  The owner is the only one running the store and always asks everyone about their setup, and makes sure the fish are compatible before he even sells them.  Plus there is a price cap well under $200 so its not like people can go and sacrifice some rare fish and hope to get a new one.  I noticed that there was a “hypothetical situation” about losing an anemone but they are not covered because they are an invertebrate that the policy clearly states is not covered.  This article is simply targeting that business out of spite and most likely competition, because this business is competing with others in the area and doing rather well for being so new.

OK, so I’ve read that people are saying this is against a certain business. Fine. I’ll change it up a bit so you can all rant at someone.

PETSMART UNCONDITIONALLY GUARANTEES ALL THEIR FISH. While this is usually and possibly always referring to freshwater fish of the f(large number generation), I believe this is a great example of what is completely wrong with the hobby. I unfortunately still have to buy worms from them, so I get to watch this regularly. People bring in mangled, torn up, terrible fish, say “it died”, and the cashier says nothing more than, “ok, here’s your refund”. Not a water test, nothing to try to figure out why the fish died. The entire principal of this takes any feeling of blame on terrible husbandry.

With all the environmental movements going on in the world, why has Petsmart and chain petstores been targeted for things like this?

I am not sure who you are talking about. My name is MARK. 

I don’t have a clue what store this is all about nor do I really care to call out anyone in particular. With your information though it does sound much more reasonable than the article made it sound. I don’t think I have a problem with the policy now. If it is for in store only, and the owner/employees do ask questions to try and make sure the fish is suitable, and for only cheaper fish like clowns that are easily tank bred, I don’t really have an issue with it. 

Actually, sounds like a smart business move, offer insurance for the clowns and 14G starter tank for the young ones and if something goes wrong they can be replaced instead of having sad little ones that lost their nemo’s. If for some reason they died due to human error hopefully it could be used as a learning experience and it will keep them in the hobby and learning instead of just giving up when they lost their first fish. For a parent giving a small tank to their kid(s), insurance is probably a great deal. 

I think the “faceless” internet sites where the actual internet sites that offer a 7-14 day warranty on fish. 

Do you mean Live Aquaria and sites like that?  Your post is difficult to interpret.

Not sure if naming names is allowed. Yes, that would be one.

Wow. This is the Clint owner of Discovery Aquatics. I’m going to stay out of this except to say I had NOTHING to do with this story, or the resulting comments. It’s been a ineresting read but please leave me and my company out of this.

That is a complete copy and paste from the reef club web site. I leave it up to others to decide.

Potential buyers are able to purchase this stores LIP insurance online, along with items that would be covered by it. This fact disproves your claim that the store or it’s employees have a say in who buys the lip and who does not.

You’re more than welcome to post supporting evidence of your claim. So far you have wrongly accused me of being someone else and you have accused Matt of teaming up with other innocent people to slander a nameless LFS.

Matt,
 
I love ya man but this article could have used a bit more research.  I own a new store in St. Louis MO called Seascape Studio and we are looking to implement a similar plan.  It could be called an insurance policy for marketing purposes but it is more of an agreement between the store and the customer.  We teach them what they need to do, they do it, prove it with water testing and discussion then they can participate in the plan.  This is something that is not offered to just anyone walking in the door but to people that have shown a commitment to taking care of the animals and are willing to learn and work with us to be successful.  What better way is there to stand behind the advice and training that we give than to say, “do this and you will be successful”.  If something goes wrong, then the store is going to help you fix it and keep you in the hobby. 

Just about every day we send people home with a bottle of buffer rather than livestock.  We extensively test water (for free) then advise if they are ready to make the purchase.  Customers are sent home with a written report card with water test results and what needs to be done to fix things.  Most will take that advice and go home and fix the water before they buy the animal.  I completely disagree that most people look at the animals as a commodity.  When the owner and employees of the store respect the animals, it rubs off on the customers. 

Matt, I would like to invite you to come visit us and see how we do things.  We have a long term strategy and NOT selling an animal really tells the customer that you are in it for their success, not just to make a buck.  They will come back and spend their hard earned cash once they realize that the goal is to make them be successful. 
 
Joe

Mark, thanks for taking on the onus of doing the heavy lifting to provide some further backup information without naming the store in question.  Your viewpoint has been spot on, and you certainly did get where I was coming from.

Ryan, your conspiracy theories and accusations of slander are simply without merit.  This story draws on the policies of no less than 4 or 5 distinct, unnamed businesses.  The information that Mark Johnson has posted as additional factual information is the same publicly available information I was able to locate when further investigating this interesting concept.  I should also say for the record that I don’t believe I know this particular Mark Johnson at all, but I do have a cousin who’s not an aquarist but carries the exact same name. 

Ultimately, I’ll reiterate two key comments. “Maybe they do a great job of screening customers and purchases, so maybe this all works [in the LFS environment].  But in the context of a faceless internet-based business, it’s cause for concern.” and “So while the concept of a Livestock Insurance Policy is a very
interesting idea, I believe the recent example I came cross could use a
bit of improvement to ensure that it doesn’t send the wrong message.”

I do not personally know the store owner in question, I have had no business dealings with this business owner.  I am simply expressing my opinion that this Livestock Insurance Policy sends the wrong message.  I do know that when I shared the policy with several people scattered around the country, reactions and concerns were similar to my own.  I’m pleased to see that this post has generated some interesting debate and conversation, but please do stick to the facts when forming opinions.

Thanks for clarifying where you stand. However, the way your program reads on the reef clubs site, and your web site contradicts everything you just posted. You also make the nieve assumption that all people are honest, actually care about the fish and won’t lie to you about the condition of their tank, or even know. If it was not about the money, lip would come at no cost to your customers.

Good luck in your venture but I suspect you will run in to troubles with this program. Both legally with the use of the word “insurance” and with customers that just don’t care.

Matt,

I dont feel the the Livestock Insurance Policy sends the wrong message but your article does.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect everyones opinion.  The horrible part of the article is its not based on FACTS as you just mentioned. 

Where did you get your Information or Facts?  Clearly not from Fragtastic Reef – me the owner.  There was no attempt or contact made to me before the article.  Everything good on this Guarantee I offer has been twisted and made inaccurate.  I do hope in the future you research more on the articles you write.  Again your entilted to your opinion as am I.  Opinions are in all of us, and we all have our own.  I sincerely hope the next article you write will be based on facts and to get all the details before hand.  You spent alot of time writing this article but it lacks truth, facts, and everything that makes it great. 

What ”Mark Johnson” posted is questionable at best.  Considering he says he would never purchase online and other information.  But yet he is a LFS and offers no Guarantee on his fish or does he?  He has posted 2 times on this site, the other post says he is a LFS…  I wouldn’t mind hearing his Guarantee.  I would be hard pressed to believe a LFS has no Guarantee at all.  That would only make the “dont ask dont tell” part of your story worse.  Considering a LFS could just say Well thats too bad it died in 2 days, buy another one since we dont stand behind our livestock.  You can twist anything into something bad.  But with Customer Service, Dedication, and great customers a Guarantee goes a long ways.

With Respect,
Fragtastic Reef  

I’m in 100% agreement with your opinion about “insurance policies” for ornamental fish.

Here is a reminder of your own words.

“Well I suppose I should announce the Livestock Insurance Policy aka L.I.P. that XXXXXXXXXXX offers. This has been in the works for some time and has been used and purchased by customers in the store. So far it has worked out great! Here we go..

Got L.I.P.?

We cover your livestock for 14 days! 

Here is some benefits:

NO water testing required – Too bad your Nitrates are high or sorry your PH is only 7.8 not 7.9. That dont happen when you have L.I.P.

NO Fine Print – You agree to the L.I.P. and you get it. If something happens in the 14 days your covered! 

Its easy! Bring your reciept and purchase back and get a replacement.

Peace of Mind – Know that when buying your livestock your covered for 14 days.

No Hassle – It dies (which sucks) you bring your dead specimen in, you get a replacement! We cover it because you did no questions asked! We recommend to bring a sample of water in to help but is not required. 

Full details of L.I.P. can be found here: 
REMOVED DIRECT LINK TO LFS SITE
I do not need to read between the lines. I have bought online. Once. I never did use the credit for the doa. 

Since you sell livestock online along with the insurance I can only assume I can buy it with a fish and have it shipped to me. If this is wrong your web site needs to be corrected.

As to the warranty offered at my store. I have never felt the need to have a published one. I handle them on a case by case basis. A few have complained and left and I am ok with that. If they are that worried about a warranty in my mind they are likely confident they will kill it.

You can have your insurance policy. if it works for you then fine. But I can see your already complaining that it costs you money. You won’t last long in this business if your margins are low and it costs you money to sell fish. One of the reasons we have the markups we do is to cover dead loss. Look at successful LFS in your market. This will give you ideas for you to use with your shop.

You can’t beat DFS or other online fish sellers who are importing direct and using drop ship services. So your going to have to adjust your business model to beat them on quality.

Thanks for the reply Garrett.  For the record I was very careful in my choice to leave company names out of this post because the intention here is not to drag any company through the mud, solely to address the concept and perceived message of your policy.  You chose to attach your company’s name to this article and conversation.

I do hope you understand that the information I used to form my opinions was what I found posted by you on a public internet forum which is exactly what Mark Johnson has quoted here.  I further researched the expanded information on your website, including seeing the ability to purchase this policy as a percentage based amount for online webstore purchases.

I welcome you to post your side of the story here in the comments.  Don’t just say I got it wrong; tell me and the readers where you think I got it wrong, especially when your own public statements included such brazen language as “no water testing required”, and “no questions asked!”.  You were not contacted because I simply felt no need; the internet is the context in which I was made aware, by you, of your product.  So if I got it wrong, is the information and statements that you have published on the internet false?

I welcome you to comment further here with whatever counterpoints you wish.  So far, you’ve only stated that I didn’t get my facts from you, but I did, through your company’s public posts and website.  You claim I didn’t research this story , but I did, again, your public posts and website.  So it does seem that my article contains both “truth” and “facts”, but also “opinions”, “hypothetical scenarios”, many more stores and counterpoints (although your policy is the main talking point), and finally, a great deal of “benefit of the doubt” thrown in (eg. “Maybe they do a great job of screening customers and purchases, so maybe this all works.”). 

You are welcome to provide ANY additional explanations of your Livestock Insurance Policy here of course.  As I wrote above, it’s an interesting idea, this LIP, but as currently laid out I believe it sends the wrong message about how we value the fish and corals we keep, and more importantly, I believe it sends the wrong message about the aquarium industry as a whole (if you’re not already aware of the pressures and scrutiny the marine aquarium industry is under, I suggest starting here by searching for topics like Hawaii and Snorkel Bob). 

I think you can do better with your livestock policy, and I really don’t like the “buy your way out of research and responsibility” approach that the “no questions asked” concept implies.

Garrett, thanks for sharing your points.  I simply have to side with Mark Johnson’s repeated quotes of your own words, as you wrote them.  I find it troubling that you admonish users that your own public marketing was “clearly just for announcing its benefits.  Not to be taken out of context.” 

Respectfully, you wrote it, and the context and meaning of a statement like this requires no additional “context” to be perfectly clear – “NO water testing required – Too bad your Nitrates are high or sorry your PH is only 7.8 not 7.9. That dont happen when you have L.I.P.”

Want to know where I got “no questions asked”?  aka. the “don’t ask don’t tell”?  Right here, in your own words – “No Hassle – It dies (which sucks) you bring your dead specimen
in, you get a replacement! We cover it because you did no questions
asked! We recommend to bring a sample of water in to help but is not
required. ”

Please also note that the “additional info” does allow the ability to put this insurance policy into the webstore’s shopping cart, aka. presumably to purchase online – http://www.shop.fragtasticreef.com/Livestock-Insurance-Policy-LIP-Livestock-Insurance.htm

You further claim “no fine print”:

“NO Fine Print – You agree to the L.I.P. and you get it. If something happens in the 14 days your covered!”

But if you look at the link above, there’s TONS of “fine print”.  In fact, it’s only within that fine print that I finally now see “LIP is only valid on items purchased within the retail store.”  Just another case of a poorly communicated message perhaps, because your webstore link above tells me I can put it into my shopping cart.  That, and when you pull up this item in the search results, it is subheaded as “This is Livestock Insurance that we offer on live goods we sell”.  So which is it?

In the context of your webstore, this policy is a free pass to be irresponsible for the reasons that you can’t pre-screen.  Yes, other online businesses do similar, but “insurance” is not optional in those circumstances and on sensitive things, often times there are no guarantees beyond live arrival.  That makes sense to me, because it sends a message that the consumer is responsible for what happens the moment they take possession of the animal.  So ironically, the concept of a short to no guarantee on Marine Livestock actually makes a ton of sense by saying to consumers that they are responsible once it leaves the store.  YES, the counter argument is that offering no guarantee implies that the vendor sells crap.  It IS a balancing act.  I’ve seen many stores solve this through loyalty programs / memberships that get you an extended guarantee on EVERYTHING…it’s not something you pick and choose.  Why?

The no questions asked concept is troubling to me because the people most apt to purchase optional insurance are the folks who will most likely need it, either due to inexperience, trying something difficult / impossible, or breaking the rules or being irresponsible with their livestock in the first place. 

I certainly wouldn’t feel the same way if this coverage was always pre-screened for, but your detailed policies state you will sell this insurance without pre-screening.  Your insurance policy, as written, covers irresponsible behavior on the part of the hobbyist.  When you look at “insurance”, the truth is that negligence isn’t covered. 

And I believe some of the other suggestions regarding the term “insurance” here has merit.  Insurance is purchased (as your product is), Guarantees are not purchased.  What you are doing is similar to a Best Buy extended protection plan.  So from a business standpoint, you would be very wise to look into that further if only to make sure you’re in compliance with regulations covering what you’re doing.  I worked for a LFS that was sued by a customer over a fish that died in water that was off-the-scale for ammonia and nitrite despite the shop offering free pre-screenings.  Knowing that happened, I believe the people commenting have your best interests at heart when they make these suggestions.

Again, I’ll stand by my opinion – there is room for improvement here.  That was the message, and while I appreciate (and acknowledged in the article) that you say this works in the store, you must appreciate that what you’re saying and posting online is sending a very different message.

Thanks for keeping the conversation on-point and civil Garrett, I hope you found some value in the discussion even though it was never my intent to drag you personally into it (again, why no names were named).

Matt

I agree… there is plenty of evidence that this kind of thinking is already well established, and even accepted as common knowledge or sound advice. 

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard somebody suggest that if you want to have 1 chromis (or banggai cardinal, or (insert fish here)) that you should buy 3 – 5 and hope you get *one* that survives.

Good ole reefbuilders!! Light on the facts, heavy on the opinions.

meh, how about LFS posting the parameters of the tanks they hold their fish in? LFS don’t acclimate, Wholesalers don’t acclimate (except for oxygenating fish). Insurance is a must if you are spending $$ on something that you can’t see first hand (ie online sales), or even from a LFS. Who knows how long something has been in a holding tank?
 
To often the burden falls on the consumer when livestock is just shuffled as quickly as possible from one tank to another for a quick buck.

I personally wouldn’t buy from any online vendor that doesn’t offer some sort of insurance..heck I won’t buy from a vendor that not only doesn’t have a insurance but also makes it a hassle to go about claiming it if they do. Most of us buying more expensive or delicate items have enough experience to know when something is our fault or out of our hands. 

Whats the big deal?  Some people choose to buy somewhere with no guarantee and cheap prices.  Other people choose to shop somewhere with a better guarantee but high prices.  Here is a guy saying, hey I can be both.  If you want a good guarantee, you can get it at the added costs.  If you don’t want it, then you can have lower prices.

This option to purchase a guarantee has nothing to do with the issues brought up in the article.  Those same issues have always been present in the market.  The difference here is that instead of choosing between two LFS, you are making the same choice at the same LFS.

Everyone please read the response (that I already posted once) in regards to this question – “WHY DID MATT PEDERSEN NOT CALL, EMAIL, OR PRIVATE MESSAGE?”

Paraphrased Answer – I didn’t feel any need to as the statements made by Garrett both on internet forums and on his company’s website are the actual “facts”, but we have been told here that these aren’t “all the facts”, although the information published at the time certainly seemed to be the official policy.  I simply saw no need to dig further as it was all there in black and white.  Only when criticized for the black and white do we find this company saying “well, it’s actually many more shades of gray too…”.

Perhaps more importantly, this article was not about Garrett or his store, but about the policy as described in his online posts and on his website. Only Garrett has chosen to directly associate his store, and business, with the policies that I chose to keep anonymous.  His choice to get involved here, and again, no attacks levied at his store, only the concepts of a specific policy, which I believe crosses the line and sends the wrong message given the extent to which it will cover negligence on the part of a hobbyist.  Yes, other stores and companies may do the same, but they do not openly convey and endorse such negligence as this policy IS MARKETED TO DO (the facts are the facts, which Garrett now seems all to happy to distance himself from).

Based  on what has been posted by this company online, which has been acknowledged as factual and accurate, as well as the additional comments here, I remain unchanged in my opinion that there is room for improvement in this “no questions asked” policy, and that it does send the “wrong message” about how we should view livestock.  Since we’re going around in circles, I’ll simply close by saying that just as Garrett believes that I have “twisted” the “official” policy that his company has posted online, so to I believe that Garrett has simply attempted to spin and divert attention from those statements by saying “well, that’s not really the whole story”.  And that’s where the argument breaks down, because for a company that is branching out into online sales, your company’s website, and your forum, may likely be the first and only impression that future customers may judge you by. Garrett, if you truly feel I have completely misunderstood your policies, it is my extremely strong suggestion that you reexamine how you have worded and marketed these policies. Last I checked “No questions asked” meant “no questions asked”.

Garrett, if this discussion has brought you support and more business, congratulations.  Obviously not everyone will agree with my opinion