I'm posting to express that I'm displeased with the way specs are published and how they differ depending on which channel it is and the difference can be to the extent of making it two different products.
The consumer products are poorly labeled in my opinion
According to product label, this ALTO II, rated at 20,000 hrs, 3000K and 85 CRI
On lamp, it says
ALTO F32T8/Soft White/K&B
It does not say ALTO II on lamp even though some other ones do.
If I search the UPC on Philips eCatalog, this product comes up both as :
|F32T8 Soft White ALTO 2SL|
|F32T8 TL830 ALTO II 2SR|
Even at 3hr/IS cycle, the data shows 24,000 hours.
When I consult the SAG printed catalog PDF
the lamp's spec is yet another thing. It has a 730 phosphor, 20,000 hour life
In Philips product line, TL730 and TL830 arae different products with the latter being higher end.
With the way your company chose to label the lamps, I have no idea what I have. Three different channels, three different information.
I know the technical labeling isn't consumer friendly, however what GE did makes sense, using labeling that allows users to identify the technical specs (SPX41) as well as consumer friendly "Premium CW 4100K" right on the lamp.
Premium CW 4100K
I understand mistakes happen, but the way customer service handled the matter is not pleasing. When I contacted them over the same type discrepancy over the 6500K lamp, they simply stated "oh it is 78 CRI", which basically told me I bought something advertised as 865, but really it was 765. They didn't seem concerned errors are there, nor any mention that it will be corrected.
So, please look at the all three channels I referenced, and you can perhaps tell me what you think?
It's really a matter of principle. One pack of consumer lamp is insignificant, but with this attitude, I am concerned this will escalate to:
"thanks for purchasing XLL lamps, the specs are 24,000, not 40,000 hours" after ordering a truck load of it, then finding out they're burning out earlier than they should a few years later.
Here is the speific incident that I find concerning. Was given an apology for confusion, but they didn't seem particularly concerned they're publishing and/or advertising wrong info and didn't seem like they're pursuing informing consumers of errors or take immediate corrective actions, such as extending immediate replacement with correct 85 CRI version, publicly advertising offer to reimburse and the like.
All I got was "oh, it's the inferior spec". Until this matter has been thoroughly corrected, my conclusion is that whenever specifying Philips lamps, multiple publications should be consulted and base everything on the least favorable figures found.
"On above date you submitted comment with ID 182583
"There was some misinformation provided for some of the products in the catalog and/or the electronic data sheets. We are working to update these. In some cases the consumer products specs are different from the professional, but it shouldn't have been for these."
The issue isn't consumer products having different specs from professional products. It's a matter of same products with same UPC barcode/catalog # having different specs between packaging, catalog and official datasheet. What is preventing your company from immediately posting a notice on nam.lighting.philips.com main page that a batch of errors occured in some lamps and that they're being corrected?
I looked at the SAG screen shot (the one I attached) again and there's yet another questionable thing within the same section.
product # 22734-8 F32T8/NATURAL LIGHT initial 2150lm mean 1900lm CRI 85, 5000K
Then from page 115...
20561-7 F40T12/C50, CRI 70... this doesn't make sense.
There's just so many things on there that don't make sense.