A Singapore resident has taken to social media to express outrage after what he describes as the worst pizza delivery experience he has ever had, calling into question Domino’s Singapore’s widely advertised “100% satisfaction guarantee”. Christer Johansen, who shared photos of his order, claimed the pizzas he received were dramatically undersized, featured incorrect crusts, and arrived with sparse toppings and poor presentation — a far cry from the brand’s promised quality.
On 12 April 2025, Johansen ordered two Xtra Large pizzas from Domino’s Singapore. However, instead of the expected 15-inch pizzas, he says one measured barely 13 inches. He also ordered the “New York Crust” but received what he described as thin, inconsistent bases that looked nothing like the crust he paid for. Accompanying photos showed pizzas with minimal toppings and uneven cuts, further fuelling his frustration with the food delivery.
Johansen noted that while he usually refrains from complaining, the experience was so substandard he felt compelled to speak out, especially in light of Domino’s “100% satisfaction guarantee”. In his initial complaint, he highlighted both the disappointing product quality and Domino’s obligation to uphold its guarantees.
Domino’s Response and Voucher Controversy
Domino’s Singapore responded via Facebook Messenger, acknowledging Johansen’s complaint and issuing two vouchers for free Xtra Large pizzas as a gesture of goodwill. They assured him the vouchers were valid for 30 days and later extended the expiry date to the end of June, considering Johansen’s overseas travel plans.
However, tensions escalated when Johansen discovered that using the vouchers for delivery required a minimum spend of $20 — a condition he felt forced him to make additional purchases to redeem compensation. Domino’s clarified that self-pickup orders would waive the minimum spend requirement, but Johansen argued this shifted the burden of resolution onto him, as he originally paid for delivery for convenience and should not have to travel to collect replacements.
Johansen insisted that the vouchers, which mirrored Domino’s frequent “50% off two pizzas” promotions, did not amount to genuine compensation and requested a full refund instead. Domino’s maintained that the vouchers constituted adequate resolution and declined to offer a refund.
Public Backlash Over Customer Service and Guarantee Claims
Frustrated by the outcome, Johansen announced he would share the entire correspondence, complete with photos of the defective pizzas, on social media to highlight what he perceives as Domino’s failure to honour its satisfaction guarantee. His posts accuse Domino’s Singapore of offering compensation that effectively requires further payment or inconvenience from customers who receive substandard products, undermining the integrity of their “100% satisfaction guarantee”.
This case has sparked discussions online about how food delivery companies in Singapore handle quality complaints and compensation. Consumers have criticised the need for customers to bear additional costs or efforts when redeeming vouchers issued as compensation for faulty products. The incident serves as a cautionary tale for both consumers and businesses about the importance of clear, fair, and truly customer-centric resolutions when things go wrong.