Why do the shippers care about breaking a TV? Presumably there are repercussions, such as an insurance plan. So why don't those repercussions just apply to bicycles? If they're fined for enough bikes being broken, they should probably learn that they need be more careful than they thought, right?
EDIT: Toning down my choice of words.
This is an awesome hack, and it's a great way to fix behavior without having to collide with bureaucracy.
It's not ethically fraudulent because the shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. And I'm sure they do pay fees for what they break, and the shipping company is trying to do what it can fix that, but putting a picture of a TV on the box is still more effective than whatever the shipping company is trying.
I'm scared to think what else you would view as ethical fraud, if pictures-on-boxes qualifies. I tell baristas that I want "room for cream" in my Americano. But I never put cream in it--- I just want less volume so that when I walk I won't spill hot coffee on my hand. #EthicalFraud
I don't necessarily agree that a shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. I think that they should meet whatever the agreement was. If the agreement is "we'll try super hard not to break stuff" and they're clearly not holding up their side of the bargain when it comes to bikes, then sure, changing the picture is fair game. If the agreement is "we'll pay for anything that breaks", then they should determine how careful they want to be, since they're footing the bill for it. Making that determination for them by changing the picture, I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up.
I think it's just the perception that bikes are "rough" and that they can take a beating. Which is true, but only when fully assembled and driven on road/terrain, not when you bang at it from the side.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So: Does their agreement say that the bike company will accurately represent their product on their packaging? If the bike company's holding up their end of whatever agreement they have, then there's nothing the least bit questionable about what they're doing.
A 3 paragraph email.
A photo of a TV on the side of the box tells the worker right then and there that this is both expensive and delicate, handle with care. It does it more than even "FRAGILE" does, because that's been abused to death already.
I suppose if everybody starts claiming their boxes are TVs, then the effect will wane as well. But this is way more effective than an easily-ignored memo.
If the workers treat every single package as if it were a Ming Dynasty vase, then their throughput will drop through the floor and that won't be their best.
If they treat every single package as if it were a box of rocks, then their breakage rate will skyrocket. That also won't be their best.
Putting the TV on the side of the box tells the worker to slide the scale closer to avoiding breakage and away from moving fast.
If they're doing this purely out of courtesy, then yes, I could understand that being wrong about the fragility of bicycles could lead to such a disparity of broken things, since they pay no consequences for being wrong. However if there is a simple insurance policy, which I can only imagine any business would have with a shipping company, they are paying consequences for it, and they would have reason to learn, and try to treat bicycles a little more like televisions.
Apparently this isn't happening, but I don't understand why.
EDIT: I would add that the only explanation I have is that bicycles are less expensive than televisions. This implies that putting a television on the box leads the shipping company to believe that they have to put more time (aka money) into care for the box than they actually have to. This is what lead to my comment about fraud.
If I had a nickel for every time I've had an Amazon purchase refunded or replaced because the delivery person smashed it to hell, or jammed it into a mailbox that was clearly too small, or left it out in the rain unwrapped, or even tossed it in the snowbank during a storm that dumped a foot and a half of snow and disappeared it until spring... I could probably buy a candy bar.
(I'm British, so I know it's not British.)
> ... If I had a nickel for every time I've had an Amazon purchase refunded or replaced because ...
Hah, looks like I forgot how expensive candy bars are. Okay I get it.
I literally can't think of more than maybe 1 or 2 in all that time that have ever been damaged.
Edit: Sorry, I should have made that clearer in my previous comment.
Don't forget that "good bikes" are actually very rare, especially if counted in volume (not price).
You can buy an adult mountain bike for £80 including 20% VAT in the UK. That's $100.
I've used one like this, it lasted less than 6 months of daily use before the sprockets, wheels, bearings and brakes were ruined.
http://www.tesco.com/direct/north-gear-rxt-mens-adults-mount...
My perspective: I used to be like you and spend around $250. The bikes would break more easily (although maybe with an insurance/maintenance plan I would have been happier).
Meanwhile, everyone else spends four figures a year on transportation (driving costs about £1000 a year, the tube costs the same). I figured if I would buy an expensive bike once it would justify the cost over many years.
I bought a folding bike (a brompton) rather than a road bike - it cost around £900. They last for decades if treated right. So the cost, divided over the years of use, is negligible compared to other modes of transport.