Outdoor Research warranty changes

OR is renowned for their warranty service, but they recently changed the terms on their site. No clue how this will change their practices, but the change was obviously intentionally made. It now speaks of the “lifetime of the product” like many other warranties.

Say what you will about abuse of policies like OR’s and the ones that used to be in place at REI and Backcountry. OR and Backcountry put these policies in place knowing the potential for “abuse” to drive sales and siphon customers from smaller outfits and brick and mortar businesses. I’d argue their return policies helped put some others out of business. While I personally could never return a well used piece of equipment, I have no problem with those who did.

Old:

I've recently had some interaction with their service department and it has been stellar.  Their customer service can't be beat and it's necessary to justify the price of $600 jackets and pants.  It keeps them in the same league as Arcteryx and Patagonia who both have similar policies.

Edited: reread the op and see the difference between old and new now.  

OR is good stuff. I have some 20 year old gaiters of theirs, nearly a decade old gloves and both are still going strong. Pretty notable for high wear items. All my other OR gear is in good shape too.  Of note is that Sierra Trading Post return policy is now down to 30 days. I guess they are owned by TJ Maxx now? Don't think I'll be shopping there much in the future. Return policies and warranties are certainly tightening up. Hopefully that just means they don't cater to abusers, but still satisfy legitimate warranty claims in an exceptional manner.

I know some people who work there, it sounds like they're being a lot stricter on what type of damage they'll warranty now, and are stricter on the requirements as well.

Love OR but will likely buy Patagonia in the future. The change in warranty bothers me

This is terrible news. I was about to sell my rab stuff for OR. I’ll probably hold off 

James Maltman wrote: I know some people who work there, it sounds like they're being a lot stricter on what type of damage they'll warranty now, and are stricter on the requirements as well.

The manufacturer shouldn't be expected to warranty damage, a worn out zipper is a defect but a hole from a crampon is normal wear and tear.  I'm not bothered by the update, it's just shifting the responsibility back to the user which is the way it should be.

I emailed, here was their reply.

If you're having trouble with waterproofing, zippers or other features in your gear, we've got you covered.
However, if the gear has experienced a user created rip, tear, burn or hole, we ideally would like to hook you up with some tenacious tape patches that we have here in office, and help you continue to get the best life out of your gear.
Additionally, if your gear is very much worn and then decided that the size is no longer working or the color is no longer working, we unfortunately will not be able to warranty that as it's not an actual defect or product issue.

Zach Raney wrote: Love OR but will likely buy Patagonia in the future. The change in warranty bothers me

Are you saying you abuse return policies? 

Marc801 C wrote:

Are you saying you abuse return policies? 

OR's new policy seems entirely reasonable.

Im saying i work 100+ feild days a year and if something wears out in a season i want it replaced with something that can keep up with the work i do

Yeah there are going to be the usual disagreements about what constitutes "abusing" a lifetime guarantee, but it's pretty clear OR changed that language purposefully and from their reply I gather they'd prefer ("ideally") to tape up stuff where they previously replaced it.

We'll see how it works out for them. IMO the guarantee is part of their brand identity and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people look elsewhere. OR gear is generally good but not exceptional. Their warranty was exceptional. Take that away and there are lots of other good companies with good warranties.

Zach Raney wrote:

Im saying i work 100+ feild days a year and if something wears out in a season i want it replaced with something that can keep up with the work i do

Wouldn't that constitute normal wear and tear?

Marc801 C wrote:

Wouldn't that constitute normal wear and tear?

Are you being facetious? Or just a jackass?

Zach Raney wrote:

Im saying i work 100+ feild days a year and if something wears out in a season i want it replaced with something that can keep up with the work i do

What kind of work are you doing? Define "wearing out." If a garment is breaking down from 100 days of "normal" use I'd agree it's defective. If you're wearing snow gloves while logging, say, maybe you need heavier equipment? I suspect OR would be very responsive if you sent back a garment that was <1 year old that had worn out. 

jdejace wrote: I emailed, here was their reply.

When I submitted a claim for my Helium II jacket, which was wetting through after several minutes in light rain, I was told that they couldn't replace it since it was past the 3-year lifetime of the product, and they offered me a 30% off coupon to purchase a new one instead. To be honest, I didn't think this was unreasonable, but it seemed a little inconsistent with their (old now, I guess) warranty policy, and with the e-mail reply posted in this thread. Hm.

1. Zach Raney wrote: 

Are you being facetious? Or just a jackass?

Neither. Senor Arroz explained it far more eloquently than I did.

1. it's defective
2. it's being abused and used for something for which it was not designed

• worth being bothered about, to the point of considering other manufacturers
• is fine, if the old policy was being abused

Briggs Lazalde wrote:

If you and Zach box ill give 200$ OR store credit to the winner. I just need some video proof.....I'm not joking either.    Nuf talk. I wanna see MP blood.

Nah. He just decided to get all pissy 'cause MP wasn't automatically supporting his position. Common occurrence. Check the thread on yard sales at the base of cliffs recently posted (where the OP has not yet returned to the thread).

Briggs Lazalde wrote:

If you and Zach box ill give 200$ OR store credit to the winner. I just need some video proof.....I'm not joking either.    Nuf talk. I wanna see MP blood.

What about me, Briggs? Nothing for me in this?

I have had 3 items Warranty replaced by OR.  One was a pair of shorts that had some stitching ripping out mid way on the inseam, and the other 2 were a pair of Jackets that the GF and I bought. Both were experiencing the same delamination problem on the taped seams, and the GF's jacket pocket zipper came off the stop.  Both Jackets were under a year old, and the shorts were 2 years old.

 Neither were used heavily it just seemed like these were defects.  I sent pics of  the damage and they were more than happy to replace them.

Whats up with people buying gear, sleeping in it for a year, jumping over camp fires, and sliding down scree fields and not understanding that you are going to damage the material..  and then expect the manufacture to replace it.

Yes, they will warrant most things,  But i wouldn't expect them to replace my Gaiters or hard shell pants because I kicked a hole in them last season with my crampons.  

OR very recently warrantied a pair of their (old, black, version) crack gloves that wore out in a few weekends. They were out of stock in the new, grey, version (which is a lot more durable) and sent me store credit. I was very pleased with how it all turned out.

Now if I could get a warranty replacement for the OR hat I left in a hut in Switzerland...

nkane wrote: OR very recently warrantied a pair of their (old, black, version) crack gloves that wore out in a few weekends. They were out of stock in the new, grey, version (which is a lot more durable) and sent me store credit. I was very pleased with how it all turned out.

Now if I could get a warranty replacement for the OR hat I left in a hut in Switzerland...

I have a pair of those gloves that have failed at the velcro strap after only a couple months use. Hadn't thought to return them under warranty but you're right, they shouldn't have failed like that.