Have you ever seen the inside of a book where there's a warning label that says you shouldn't have bought the book if it didn't have a cover?
That's for the same reason. The way books are sold works like this:
1. The publisher prints a whole pile of them.
2. Booksellers order a bunch. Because both publisher and bookseller want to maximize sales and avoid turning away a customer because they don't have enough copies of the book, the bookseller orders more than they expect to sell.
3. Once the sales have tapered off, the bookseller is stuck with unsold merchandise. They could send them back to the publisher, but the last thing in the world the publisher wants is more copies of a product they themselves can mass manufacture. So, instead, the bookseller just destroys them and tells the publisher how many weren't sold so they can be refunded.
4. Of course, a nefarious bookshop could simply claim that the books were unsold and then get to sell books that they didn't pay for and pocket the profit. To prevent that, the publisher requires them to cut the covers off and ship those back. Shipping just the covers is much cheaper than shipping the entire book and serves to ensure that every book was indeed not sold. Then the bookseller trashes the rest of the book.
5. Of course, this scheme only works if the bookseller can't sell a coverless book. So the publisher prints the warning inside the book to remind customers not to buy them like that.
We were tight on money when I was a kid. My favorite times were when my mom would come home with a box of coverless books from the bookstore next to the diner where she worked, bought for like $1 each. I wonder how many other kids had that experience.
They had remaindered or unsold books, covers intact, usually of an academic nature. But that also included O'Reilly books, and I got several large "coffee table" books of glossy photographs that would usually be £50 but reduced to £2 due to cosmetic damage to the slip cover.
I remember going to several questionable bookshops that sold coverless books quite cheaply (frequently $1/$2 for a lb of books). As a kid it was an excellent way to stock up on books.
You can also buy books by the linear foot. Apparently when WFH got going big time it caused a huge spike in demand as people wanted filled bookshelves as a backdrop for video calls.
That's a fair amount of effort, expense (printing), and labor (assembly) just to try to sell a book that you've already determined isn't selling very well!
> So the publisher prints the warning inside the book to remind customers not to buy them like that.
But the publisher's warning also verifies that it's a bona fide copy.
Just imagining...
Dear downloader: please make sure the file with the sha1 hash fingerprint "34973274" is accompanied with a physical copy of our famous hologram logo sticker. If you don't have the sticker then STOP-- do not open the program to view the contents.
That's neat! One thing that's not immediately obvious to me: why does the publisher make that deal with the bookseller? Since it's in the seller's best interest to sell as many copies as possible anyway, why not let them eat the cost of ordering too many? I suppose the answer is simply to help publishers entice sellers; to give sellers a guarantee that helps them avoid that worry. Still, I wouldn't have predicted it.
> why does the publisher make that deal with the bookseller?
Good question!
My understanding is that that's how it used to work. Booksellers would buy as many as they wanted and sales were final as far as the publisher was concerned. It was on the bookseller to make sure they didn't buy too many.
During the Great Depression, bookstores were hit very hard and they didn't buy much. That in turn hit publishers. In order to incentivize bookstores to buy more copies, a couple of the larger publishers began to offer this deal where they would allow returning unsold copies. Booksellers loved it, obviously, since it greatly reduced their risk. Once a couple of publishers did this, the rest were basically pressured to follow since the booksellers so strongly prefered publishers who did.
Once booksellers got used to this deal, it became entrenched and now publishers are essentially stuck with it.
magazines does it too, anyone remember those shiny publications?
printed on high gloss heavy paper, very heavy.
what they wanted is just a bag of bar codes then the retailers dump them anywhere they please. it's one thing I'm happy to see die out, the cost of printing and shipping then just dumping is a very wasteful endeavour just to incite further insecurities in their audiences (mostly) so they can advertise more products. Doing it online is much more efficient.
Quite interesting, did not know things worked like this in the US.
In France, from my understanding, there is "Les retours" ("The returns"), a system where libraries have one year to send unsold books backs, then the distributor usually dispatch them to their libraries or as a stock for online sales.
Just FYI, it looks like you've been tricked by a false cognate there: in English, "library" means a place you borrow books (bibliotheque), "bookstore" means place you buy books (librairie)
Strangely, I don't to the mistake when going from English to french. Because I'm more used translating "software library" to "bibliothèque logicielle" than talking about book stores in English.
I've heard this description before, but I've never seen a cover-less book before. I've seen plenty of books that's become detached from they covers, but not missing entirely.
Of course, it also only works if the profit offsets the cost. The cost of printing and shipping an extra book is very low. If you apply this to e.g. phones, I think the margins drop rapidly.
I've had a half-planned essay sitting around for years on how "rubbish has no SKU".
An important part of a product is its standard, fungible nature. Every unit off the production line the same. Quality maintained. Sealed in packaging.
As soon as you take it out of the packaging it becomes a unique item with a history. It's outside the QA bubble. It might be in perfectly saleable condition; it might have something wrong with it (after all, there's a reason it's being returned); it might have been damaged by the customer. It's a liability. If they were to take it back and re-sell it to someone, and get sued, that would wipe out more value than throwing away hundreds or even thousands of the same good.
This is also why secondhand goods in general are so cheap, and things like furniture may even have negative net value because they cost more to move than they are worth.
> This is also why secondhand goods in general are so cheap, and things like furniture may even have negative net value because they cost more to move than they are worth.
On the German equivalent to Craigs' List - Ebay Kleinanzeigen - IKEA furniture is much easier to sell than other furniture, even though IKEA furniture is cheap and quality is only "good enough". The reason, I think, is that used IKEA furniture comes closest to still being a standardized item. You can easily look up the dimensions online, you may already have or know the exact same item, you know what to enter into the search field [of Ebay Kleinanzeigen]. The overall buying experience might even be better than going to the IKEA store, as the furniture is already assembled and potentially closer to your home.
I wonder if ikea furniture also has value for parts. Often times a single piece of the furniture will break, but if the item or color is discontinued you can’t replace it.
Ikea furniture is very easy to repair with little more than wood glue. Ikea is also very gracious with giving you replacement or spare hardware for cheap or free.
A friend and I recently broke an IKEA bed. The beam that supports the slats is made of multiple pieces of wood joined with zigzag finger joints, and that beam is attached to the frame with some thin staples. When the staple slip, the beam just bends apart at these joints. It seems like many people's Ikea beds fail this same way. It would be great if IKEA sold repair kits to patch up their design flaws. As it stands, in this country, hardly anyone wants to use fix anything themselves, or used second hand things. The whole frame just becomes rubbish. With humanity in the situation it is in, needing to reduce the impacts of activities on the world, as a matter of survival, it's crazy to me that our economic processes and social norms are unwaveringly directing so much of our material goods, and energy use into landfills.
If you want people to repair things more often (as opposed to throwing them away), then you need to figure out a way to make those things more expensive. That's the (IMO) biggest reason why people used to repair things more often.
I just paid $250 on Craigslist for an item that I purchased new at IKEA for $149 ten years ago. I wanted a matching one and IKEA had since discontinued the color.
My grandpa passed away recently and stuff he had spent over a million dollars over the years to accumulate over the years sold only for $30k. I realized that most of the value in selling a product in keeping it organized on a shelf, and marketing to consumers that you are a place where someone can buy a product of that type.
I think part of the problem is that most products are so shitty and short-lived that the retail value and never-used resale value are enormously different.
You make some good points. Foremost is underwear/knicks and toothbrushes (aka intimate objects). Those are a no-no. So there are some things that you should not be able to return for a refund (like medication).
But there is that new category of things with too little actual value to be worth processing like pillows and compressed mattresses (once you allow them to expand, you cannot compress them at home.)
But a lot if the problem in returnable objects where a return is not cost effective has to do with shipping costs. Shipping it back + processing costs cuts into profits and the resale value does not compensate adequately. Fortunately for them, the "returns" ratio don't negate overall profits.
That said, when it makes sense to me, I will buy from Amazon's warehouse deals --there are some good deals to be had.
An acquaintance bought a fancy king-sized mattress and found some minor damage (ripped fabric) upon delivery. They reached out to customer support, thinking maybe they’d get a discount. Instead they were sent a replacement mattress and told not to bother returning the old one.
They had no use for a second mattress, so that’s how we got a free, brand-new very fancy king-sized mattress with minor cosmetic damage!
It's weird buying expensive stuff like boats after living your whole life surrounded by new consumer goods. I keep finding modifications/damage the previous owners made and have to figure out how to deal with them on my own.
Buying a used car is a similar experience, especially if it is a classic. So many quick-fixes, modifications, fixed and unfixed damage, and for vehicles from the 1960s even differences in factories.
A guy I used to work/hobby with could tell you which factory a Mustang was built in, and though in my era (1990s) the markings had all been gone, it is said that he and others could even tell you the name of the guy who assembled certain parts by the markings or other inconsistencies. When restoring a Mustang, these details (e.g. built by Mario in Dearborn in early 1967) are replicated by a good restorer. I believe that Jaguar also has affectionados who know the cars to that level of detail.
amazon used seems to be addressed this - there's now standards in quality, with much lower discounts, and I've had uniformly good luck buying used @ amazon just like it's new.
The average quality of consumer goods has deteriorated so far that it's practically all trash on arrival. Of course they don't want returns coming back, it's a big fat waste stream and they want nothing to do with it beyond skimming their take as it blows past.
Instead we should be forcing stores to not only always accept unwanted items, if anything to encourage them to exercise more care preventing low-quality/counterfeit/misrepresented products. But to also be at least partially responsible for the total waste/recycling burden their sales create.
> Whenever someone hands me a flyer, it's kind of like they're saying "here, you throw this away." - Mitch Hedberg
I disagree with the "trash on arrival" assessment.
We've optimized standardized manufacturing to incredible levels, while any kind of "exception handling" is much harder to optimize, and thus becomes more expensive relative to manufacturing.
A return isn't equivalent to the original item. A return is an item of unknown quality/status that requires manual handling to be turned into a known, sellable item, unless you want to sell boxes full of rocks as new items. The cheaper making a new item is, the less worth it is to deal with the exceptions.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. If re-making is less resource intensive (human labor is also a resource) than the alternative, then re-making is often the right choice.
Repairing is also waste: It often involves inefficient one-off shipping and handling of spare parts, and is a massive sink for human effort.
On the flip side, it seems people have become somewhat entitled by Walmart’s “we’ll take anything back”. Such as trying to return unused generators to local retailers after the hurricane has passed.
Oh man. Unwanted memories. I used to work at Future Shop (basically Best Buy) [don't judge I was young:]. Every summer people would buy a camcorder, go on vacation, then return a sandy "unused" camera.
Every time people rant (rightfully!) about corporations are bad, I think of any experience I had in retail and realize sure but people are assholes too :-D
Unless it's different where you are you can still pull the Super Bowl rental at Costco. Returns on electronics are still accepted, just time limited to 90 days instead of "forever".
What it was to prevent was lifetime free warranty and upgrades. Buy a laptop, use it for 3 years, come back and say "I don't like it anymore.", get your money back, buy new laptop with upgraded specs... repeat.
And before you think this is theoretical, when I worked there we had a guy return a TV. It was a ~7 year old rear-projection TV that was bought before the 90 day policy was implemented. It had died well out of warranty.
So he returned it, got his ~$4k back, walked out on the floor and grabbed a $2k LCD and went home with a brand new LCD TV and $2k in his pocket in exchange for his 7 year old broken TV.
I believe Costco will cancel (and refund) a membership at their own discretion. I’ve read stories online that they have cancelled memberships for clearly exploiting return policies, as well as other things like grossly mistreating warehouse employees.
Yep, exactly this. Costco is willing to eat a few people abusing the system in return for those sweet sweet membership profits, but if you start to seriously abuse the system they have zero problem kicking you out.
I saw this happen first-hand while I was waiting in line to renew my membership. There was a man in front of me in line who from what I overheard of his conversation with the manager was returning something like his 5th tv in a year. The manager gave him his refund and then rescinded his membership and had the man walked out of the store.
The secret sauce: Costco sent that TV back to the company who sold it, and deducted the value from the next invoice.
If Samsung, etc didn't like it, Costco would drop them as a vendor real fast. So the merchants would eat it. Apparently it got bad enough that they stopped eating it.
I pay fifteen euro per year to have unlimited shit delivered and picked up at my house 7 days and nights a week.
How a delivery service is supposed to make a profit on that is beyond me, it's sweatshop level of insanity, but it is my capitalist duty not to ask questions and just consume people and planet be damned.
Returning products does use energy though, often in the form of gas or diesel. It may be more ecological to simply ask consumers to destroy some items such as plastic totes (bulky) or masonry (heavy).
Recently I bought about $2.5K worth of credit card readers from a credit card processor. During the integration process it turned out the processor was untrustworthy and a terrible partner (that's a whole other story) and so I looked into returning the equipment. I saw on their website they were going to charge a 25% restocking fee which really sucked (this is for a side-project) but it was worth it to drop them as my processor. After waiting 3+ days (and multiple calls/tickets) they finally replied to me "We've refunded you, please take the equipment to the nearest electronic recycling plant". I was very surprised (and a little happy I got back the full price).
Just to make it clear, these were battery-powered card readers (VP3300's [0]) that were still in their boxes with the original cords. I was shocked they wanted me to just throw them away. They are also very small and the box that held them all wasn't big or heavy.
On the other hand, what guarantees do they have that you haven't tampered with the readers? Are they able or can afford to disassemble every single one of them to inspect?
Sorry, I've already disposed of them. I probably would be hesitant anyway since they are tied to my LLC and I'm sure, based on the stack of documents I signed, I could have gotten in a lot of trouble giving them away.
Telling customers just to keep returns is wide open to abuse.
Why not just sell discounted "non-returnable" versions of products, the same as you can buy discounted non-refundable airline tickets?
America's "everything is returnable" culture is a bit odd, obviously intended to encourage mindless consumption, but comes at a cost... You are paying extra for everything since the cost of return losses is built into the price - you are paying "return insurance" whether you need it or not.
> Why not just sell discounted "non-returnable" versions
They do. It's called a final sale. Clothing retailers do this frequently. Some are more strict on this than others. Bonobos, for example, often advertises as final but will accept returns (YMMV basis).
What I'm curious about is sizing. Buy three pairs of the same size pants from Banana Republic and you'll get three pairs that fit differently. Their deviation is sometimes extreme. Same with Levis and others. You would think, in an online shopping world, that this would be the lowest of hanging fruit. I can't believe the cost of QA is greater than the costs of returns and reputational harm. Shopping online for clothes is just madness, and it's common to buy multiple items of the same size (or next size S and M) just to be able to return the ones that don't fit. Sometimes you may fit in S and an M from the same brand. Just different SKU/factory/batch. It's a total crapshoot.
I've been burned by that as well. I pretty much only by clothes on final sale if I have a high degree of confidence I will like the result (feel, fit, color, etc) and even then I've been disappointed by the variability in quality.
BTW, Mr. Porter has a fantastic return process. They include the return label and invoice in the box. Some of their stuff is expensive, but I'm much more comfortable trying their products out because it's so easy to return.
My understanding is that the problem isn’t QA but rather that manufacturing to a tight tolerances costs more. Specifically because you can stack a bunch of sheets of fabric and cut them all at once, provided you are willing to accept slight differences in the measurements on each.
Or even that it’s the same factory. The big stores/companies have factories around the world producing and that can lead to lots of variation.
Some high end tailored clothes even sells you the entire bolt of cloth in case you want to match it later, because everything the same the bolts will vary slightly over time.
You need returns for e-commerce because customers can't touch and feel the item or try it on prior to purchase. Top returned items are clothes and sizing is inconsistent across not only brands but styles/fabric.
Most do provide measurement translations into inches and cms. But oddly a 30” is 32” and 34” actually measures 36” for waist sizes even in “true to fit”. Vanity!
I can argue this point right now. I have measured my foot, it is 28 CM, and I have consistently bought shoes with that size in mind without fail.
Until recently, where I have been trying to order a pair of Teva sandals (I live far away from standard stores for purchasing brand name items, and often don't do it except for shoes, beds, office chairs, etc), and I got the size that compared to 28 CM. Too big. Go down a size. Still too big. 25 CM in Teva is officially 28 CM everywhere else. Why the inconsistency?
There's a stark difference between waist size and foot size. There's not a lot you can do to change the size of your feet, but diet and exercise affect your waist.
I used to wear a 36 or 38 waist pants. I've managed to get that down to a 30, but I'm back up to a 32. I've also been buying Levi's jeans with some elastic in them, so maybe I've gone back up more, but I'm willing to lie to myself and say I'm still a 32.
It would also my wish that retailers would push for this more.
However, I did also recently chat to a acquihire of Zalando who are building a Computer Vision-based app to scan (near-naked) photographs of customers to provide a 3D model to approximate fit of clothes.
Which does seem the fix to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, but companies are more willing to through elaborate tech at it than just fix the original issue (cf. carbon capture). Very very frustrating.
> America's "everything is returnable" culture is a bit odd, obviously intended to encourage mindless consumption
I don't see how allowing consumers to get first-hand experience with a product before being forced to stick with it causes their consumption to be "mindless". It allows them to make choices that are more informed.
It encourages mindless consumption because it lowers the level of commitment needed. Not sure if you really want it, or should be buying it? ... No need to overthink it - just buy it anyway and return it if you change your mind.
Surely you don't think stores have these policies for your benefit - to allow you to be a more informed consumer?! They have these policies because it results in them selling more stuff, because they are lowering the level of commitment needed for consumers to buy.
You are trying so hard to be cynical about capitalism and America here, which I get, but the narrative you're aiming for just doesn't hold together.
> It encourages mindless consumption because it lowers the level of commitment needed. Not sure if you really want it, or should be buying it?
How is having more information about a product from first-hand experience somehow more mindless than buying a thing sight unseen?
> return it if you change your mind.
Yes, exactly. You can use your mind to decide if you want the product. That's the opposite of mindless.
> Surely you don't think stores have these policies for your benefit - to allow you to be a more informed consumer?!
I know this might seem totally crazy to you but, yes, in most transactions both the buyer and seller end up satisfied. That's why people buy and sell things. When I sell a thing, it's worth less to me than it is to the buyer. When I buy a thing, it's worth more to me than it is to the seller.
Obviously, buyers and sellers are trying to get the best preferential deal for themselves, but it is not a zero-sum game. You are currently surrounded by products most of which you probably purchased. Surely you don't believe you got actively fucked over on every single one of those do you?
> They have these policies because it results in them selling more stuff, because they are lowering the level of commitment needed for consumers to buy.
Yes. And to the degree that having things can benefit anyone's life, that is good for consumers too. Sure, we could also just not buy stuff. Sit on a bare patch of dirt. But sometimes stuff makes our life better.
I bought a synthesizer recently. It's really hard to predict if a musical instrument will gel with you, since it's complex, interactive, and the sounds that resonate with someone are deeply personal. Also, they're often quite expensive. Sometimes you can try one in a store, but even that doesn't always help since it can be difficult to really explore the sounds in a crowded shop.
I was OK with ordering it online because I knew if it didn't work for me, I could return it. The alternative would have been not buying it. It was too expensive to commit to being stuck with it without any first-hand experience. And, sure, I could definitely get by without it. It's not like I need it to live. But in this case, it turns out that I like it. It's enriched my life to have it, and I wouldn't if the store didn't allow returns. I benefitted from that policy.
> You are trying so hard to be cynical about capitalism and America here
No, I'm really not. These are my actual opinions.
> Yes, exactly. You can use your mind to decide if you want the product. That's the opposite of mindless.
So who's trying overly hard to support their POV now ? ;-)
> I bought a synthesizer recently
For sure there's consumer benefit to the "everything is returnable" norm, especially in cases like this where it's hard to know if something matches your needs without actually trying it. No doubt it also sometimes works the other way and folk are encouraged to buy stuff they don't need, then never end up returning it so just waste their money.
Of course retail is a generally a win-win, but that doesn't mean the retailer doesn't have their own best interests at heart. They use the "everything is returnable" policy because at end of the day it generates them more profit. They wouldn't be extending you this "try before you buy" benefit if it was actually costing them more than not doing so (unless competitive pressure forced them to).
I understand that "mindless consumption" is not how most people would be happy to describe their shopping behavior, nor is it a good description of everyone, but nonetheless it's hard to come up with a more broadly accurate and concise description of why stores do this to increase sales. Even in your synth case (where try-before-you-buy is plenty justifiable) it essentially fits ... you made the purchase because the store removed any worries you had about whether it was the right decision or not.
> you made the purchase because the store removed any worries you had about whether it was the right decision or not.
No, I still have all of those worries. I still have to pay for the thing after all, so the consequences are entirely the same. The only difference is how much information I have at the point that I have to make that decision.
If I can return it, then I have first-hand experience before I decide to commit to the purchase. If I can't return it, I have to commit with less knowledge.
> No, I still have all of those worries. I still have to pay for the thing after all, so the consequences are entirely the same.
Hardly. If you can return it you get your money back, else not, so the financial consequences of able-to-return or not are 100% different.
> I was OK with ordering it online because I knew if it didn't work for me, I could return it. The alternative would have been not buying it. It was too expensive to commit to being stuck with it without any first-hand experience.
I feel like this is going to backfire as a consumer.
The whole point of the warranty is that the company is claiming the product will work for x days. If you start letting people sell things without a warranty they'll make products that last 0 days but advertise well.
I'm not talking about warranty/defective item returns.
I'm talking about the fact that in America you can return pretty much anything, without having any reason. Don't want that party dress after you've worn it to the party? Return it! Don't want the big screen TV after your Super Bowl party? Return it! Can't profit from your stockpile of covid-shortage toilet paper? Return that too!
Costco has (had) a satisfaction guarantee and they wanted you to abuse it a bit so that you’d feel safe splurging. But people returning ten year old mattresses and TVs hampered that a bit - but only in specific items. Computers are another one.
Yeah, a few years ago I remember a news story about Cosco accepting a returned real Christmas tree sometime after Christmas, by which time most of the needles had fallen off and the thoroughly used tree had no value other than mulch.
Except you often can't .. if you say the TV can't be returned without reason, your customer will pour a jug of water into it and claim it never worked...
> Why not just sell discounted "non-returnable" versions of products, the same as you can buy discounted non-refundable airline tickets?
Because the feeling of security the return policy gives customers makes it much more likely that they'll buy something. Most of the time, people buy things because they want them, so they won't return them even if they can.
From a customer's perspective, having the return option is preferable to not having the return option. From a store's perspective, 150 customers buying the product and 5 of them returning it is likely preferable to 100 customers buying the product and 0 returning it.
Additionally, forcing people to make an additional decision (whether to buy return insurance) is a great way to cause analysis paralysis and sell 50 instead of 150.
I suspect you're right on all points, but if the 150/5 vs 100/0 logic is correct, they I wonder why this isn't the norm in other countries?
I think part of it is also that retail mark-ups are typically huge, so the loss on a few returns, even if thrown in the trash, vs the extra profit on a few more sales, skews heavily towards encouraging the extra sales.
Still, as someone who never returns non-defective stuff, it'd be nice not to have to subsidize those that do!
> America's "everything is returnable" culture is a bit odd...
Not sure how this is unique to America. EU countries have much stronger "return" laws and consumer protection laws that theoretically encourage even more of what you're implying.
Not sure how things may have changed since, but when I left the UK (now live in US) in the 80's, this norm did certainly not exist, and was quite shocking to me to see in the US.
I do remember the cringe factor in hearing that my mother had once convinced (against normal policy) a UK retailer to take back some clothing item she had simply changed her mind on! It'd be like ordering a steak at a restaurant then sending it back because "I changed my mind - I'd like the chicken".
As others have noted, there's a difference between consumer protection laws supporting return of faulty goods, and this ability to return stuff because you no longer want it (and may have even used it!).
> If you bought a product or a service online ... you also have the right to cancel and return your order within 14 days, for any reason and without a justification.
> Why not just sell discounted "non-returnable" versions of products, the same as you can buy discounted non-refundable airline tickets?
Online retailers often do just that. You may see a retailer have a section called "final sale" or "last call" for discounted, non-returnable merchandise. Others simply offload the merchandise onto EBay.
I have bought things that way, but often I have regretted it. In general it is hard to evaluate online goods before purchase, and if something ends up on "final sale" it probably wasn't selling well to begin with for a good reason.
> You are paying extra for everything since the cost of return losses is built into the price - you are paying "return insurance" whether you need it or not.
I've heard this before but it always confuses me. Stores always charge the amount such that (price per widget)*(expected number of widgets sold) is maximized.
Put another way - If stores somehow managed to eliminated returns with no other side effects, would you expect the price to drop?
Stores are certainly trying to maximize profits, but how optimal they are about it is going to vary.
Who's doing the best job in maximizing profit - the gas station selling lots of gas at $2/gal, or the one across the road selling far less at $2.50/gal? (I don't know, but surely one is doing better than the other!).
In other countries where "no reason" returns are not the norm, are stores missing out on profit they could be making by adopting this policy and adjusting prices accordingly, or is it the American stores that have it wrong?
If all stores in unison dropped no-reason returns then there's be no competitive reason to drop prices, but if only one or a few did it then presumably they'd have to (else why pay same price for less flexibility). More to the point, they might WANT to drop prices as a result of this reduced cost-of-goods since that'd be a way to attract more customers, as non-stop "10% off" sales attest.
Then why did all the mom and pop shops go out of business when Kmart and Walmart and Dollar General came around around?
Retail is a near perfect example of multiple sellers competing for multiple buyers resulting in razor thin profit margins, which means the buyers are getting what they want at the lowest prices possible.
Retail business do not earn 2-4% profit margins because they want to, they earn them because their customers will go to the store next door if they try to take 5%+.
> Retail business do not earn 2-4% profit margins because they want to, they earn them because their customers will go to the store next door if they try to take 5%+.
Have you seen Home Depot's and Lowe's profit margins? Consistently 5-9% for decades. Kroger, Walmart, and target all earn 1-3%. They hardly ever earn 4% nowadays. Perhaps after all of the cashiers and stockers are automated or made redundant. They are all heavily investing in automation, delivery, pickup, and supply chain tech.
Home Depot/Lowes are good counterexamples of retail where profit margins are increasing, and some of it is surely due to them killing the competition and being in a high barrier to entry retail sector.
The logistics of selling the things Home Depot and Lowes sells is much harder to replicate than Target/Walmart/grocery retail, so the profit margins need to get bigger before a competitor will want to invest in the market due to the higher risks.
That is all part of the equation customers are using to decide who to buy from. Price is not just the currency exchanged, but convenience, warranty, trust, etc.
The point is competition does cause each other to up their offerings and/or lower prices to maintain market share.
How can there be a supply chain crisis and a inventory surplus? I don't get it. It seems the market is completely upside down. Is the market completely incapable of adaptation?
A few days ago I took a plane and more than half the flights were cancelled that day, supposedly because of the hiring crisis. Yet there are a record number of people travelling! These people booked their flights months ago! Why did the company not hire more people? Why did they not simplify the hiring process? Why did they not adjust the wages accounting for the labor shortage?
>How can there be a supply chain crisis and a inventory surplus?
These are the same problem. Matching allocation to demand is a hard problem and the wild swings in demand caused by COVID and inflation responses means that you have both supply chain problems and surplus problems.
Things aren't very elastic and money-saving just-in-time practices of eliminating buffers mean that it is harder to respond to the various shocks.
You're essentially upset that the future wasn't predicted correctly when there has been a lot of uncertainty going around for years now.
It seems to me that "a lot of uncertainty going around for years" would make some attempt to actually set up a buffer to better absorb shocks and adapt. This is not about predicting the future, it is about failing to manage a clearly increased risk of failing to predict the future.
Right now it seems like airlines in Europe are selling enough tickets so that the airlines are at or over their capacity of handling passengers. Lots of lines and delays everywhere. Maybe the airlines just don't have the incentive to slow down their sales, etc, even if the airports are not ready with enough staff.
> How can there be a supply chain crisis and a inventory surplus?
The supply chain crisis doesn't mean nothing is being supplied. It means that there are unknowable delays in everything. Your order may be made on time or delayed for several months. Once it's on a boat, it make take two weeks or four weeks to get across the Pacific, but then it might be unloaded right away or stuck on the boat for months. Once off the boat, it could be stuck at the port for a week or get transfered to a truck or rail right away.
When faced with all that uncertainty, you're going to have times where things start moving and too much stuff shows up at once. As well as times where you don't have much to sell.
It takes over a thousand hours of flight time to even qualify as an airline pilot. It's not a labor pool you can just expand and contract on a whim. It's a work force you have to strategically cultivate and maintain. When companies get too eager to "trim the fat" in lean times this is the result. You can't always scale back up as quickly as you'd like.
And the rest of the in-flight crew has to deal with rude, obnoxious, and sometimes aggressive assholes. It's not a job I would ever take nor recommend.
> How can there be a supply chain crisis and a inventory surplus?
Different times and different things. There can be a surplus of T-shirts from Vietnam and a shortage of 90nm PMICs at the same time. There can be a shortage of stuff in December due to port problems, but an oversupply of that (out of date) stuff in February. Not to mention the drop in real income and a large drop in goods spending as aggregate spending shifts again back to services like air travel.
> Why did they not adjust the wages accounting for the labor shortage?
There are far more jobs than people to hire, at present there are guaranteed to not be enough people somewhere. That will be wherever has the least capacity to pay more - and airlines are notable for being extremely low margin.
Coronavirus restrictions flipped the world upside down in a number of ways that interrupted multi decade processes.
As a personal example, my field went WFH and so I just left it because I like in person interactions. That's ten or more years of training gone.
You can argue about whether in that specific case perhaps someone on the other side of the world can replace me, but in the abstract, you can't just change everything (e.g. fire everyone at the airline and attempt to rehire) and expect to be 100% back to normal just because you want to be.
People moved city, bought pets, marriages broke, etc. Things changed.
It isn't so much a "hiring crisis" as "intentional early retirement is business as usual". Airlines received billions of dollars from Congress to encourage them not to lay off workers during 2020. They took the money and used some of it as early retirement bonuses for pilots and other employees. [0][1][2] They knew they wouldn't have enough personnel to fly many of the flights they scheduled, but tickets are paid in advance and free loans from would-be customers are good for executive bonuses. Now they're blaming "weather", when the sun beats down with not a cloud in the sky, so they don't have to help passengers pay for hotels and alternate flights. If there were anyone home at DoT there would be major fines to pay, but they know that CIA Pete isn't going to do anything to annoy donors. [3]
> Why did the company not hire more people? Why did they not simplify the hiring process? Why did they not adjust the wages accounting for the labor shortage?
Training pilots takes time. Even with an aggressive hiring ramp-up, the new crop probably wouldn't be trained in time for today. Perhaps for 2024's travel season.
not to mention that without consistent flight time pilots lose their certification. When things were grounded during COVID many ultimately did lose their wings...
COVID dramatically reduced worker demand for airlines, hotels, restaurants, the like. So those people went to do something else, something that saw an increase in demand, say delivering packages.
Now those workers are needed again, but no longer available. Or only a few.
As an example, at Schiphol airport (Amsterdam) they require 500 new/extra security staff. It takes months to find them and just training takes several weeks.
Or from another point of view: why not cancel the flights preemptively? It should have been clear you'd not have enough people to man the flights. But they kept accepting bookings.
The airlines are in the trouble they are in because they saw it as expedient to deny Covid exists. (Hard lobbying for an end of mask mandates on planes)
Covid, alas, did not do them the favor of agreeing to their belief system and is still around. And so now they have a large number of people sick, and a large number of employees upset that their health is sacrificed for corporate profits.
As for "why don't they just hire more", pilots don't grow on trees. A commercial licenses requires 1500 flight hours, spread out over at least two years. And (again, because it was cheap), airlines outsourced that cost to pilots. Same as all other education efforts. So, on the pilot side, addressing a shortage takes at least two years and requires finding a bunch of people willing to sink time and money into a license - while simultaneously the airline companies have sent a clear signal they don't care about their employees.
"The market" can't fix those issues. Not in the short term, and with the trust lost, not even in the mid term.
So why didn't airline cancel those flights? One, if you pretend the situation is different from reality, the pain of cognitive dissonance makes you buy into your own lies. Two, even if you resist that force, as a publicly traded company, cancelling thousand of flights in advance is a hit on your stock price. If you wait until the last moment, maybe something changes, or you might make it at least past bonus day.
Ultimately, the market has adapted. It just has adapted to maximizing executive pay.
This is all basically correct. However, there are some supplementary bits of information that may be important too. At the beginning of the pandemic when demand dropped to virtually zero, they also paid older pilots to retire early.
Additionally, it didn’t used to take that long to get a pilot’s license. Before 2013 you could obtain a license in 250 hours. This changed due to a law passed by congress that increased flight training time to 1500 hours in reaction to a commercial accident that occurred in 2009. The irony? The pilots of that crash both had far more than 1500 hours of experience. It was a sympathy play.
Short-term profits and poor regulatory strategy led to this.
Just make sure to pick a flight that is ferrying pilots/flight attendants around so they can operate other flights. Those are probably the last ones that will get cancelled.
One of my friends is such a "liquidator", he buys up both excess inventory (never sold) and returned items for rock bottom prices.
He has developed a keen sense in finding the profitable jewels. For example, women's cosmetics. They are unused (damaged boxes and such), he buys them up < 10% of the retail price then puts them up at 90% retail price on his own website.
Women are spamming him to death. When do you have the cheap "item X" again?
It should be said though that it's a very laborious business model. He needs to quality check, inventorize, publish, tax report, etc on a huge amount of items. He has a "no return" policy. Which is actually illegal here (Netherlands), but he seems to get away with it as nobody bothers with a 5$ item.
> buys them up < 10% of the retail price then puts them up at 90% retail price
In other words, the labor he puts in is worth the 80% of retail price. Or seen differently, he's a business that uses labor to turn a worthless pile of mixed products of questionable usefulness into sellable product.
I’m a little surprised the likes of TK Maxx (I believe that’s the name they use in Europe) leaves room for smaller operators like your friend. Although I guess if there’s so much surplus retailers don’t want to accept returns, it makes sense.
You can just buy pallets of returned stuff, you'll find a bunch of websites selling those via google, e.g. https://www.restposten.de/palettenware/retourware/ for a German marketplace. Most of the times you won't know exactly whats inside.
If you're interested in unpacking, without buying pallets of stuff, theres a small trend by YouTube influencers buying a pallet or two and looking whats inside.
Mailing things from China to the US is cheaper than mailing inside the US because of strange consequences of postal treaties. This is one of the things Trump was right about and got partially fixed, possibly by accident.
(though, it's naturally cheap to send things in bulk because sea shipping is very efficient.)
Postage is not the only cost. After receiving the return the retailer would also need to inspect and restock it, or dispose of it themselves. At some point the labor costs just aren't worth it.
Or the margin on them is so small that they take less loss letting you keep the item instead of paying shipping and adding to the loss of an item that may not be re-sellable.
I believe they have liquidators who will take returned items and sell them. I think it's more of a matter of expense of handling return > fee liquidator would pay, and that probably indicates it's cheap Chinese crap.
This has me wondering if there's an opportunity for an online retailer that doesn't take returns (except where required by law) in exchange for reduced prices. Maybe their platform could include an integrated eBay like marketplace for selling what would have been returned.
Or, they just got bought up by Walmart (jet.com) and Amazon (woot) for example. It's not that mysterious. They had a good model. They just sold out/bought out.
If no one acts on that information then sure, sounds like a plan. But I suspect many people would buy things they don't even really want and "return" them hoping to get free shit once word gets out, making the problem even worse.
that's where simple statistical models come in. The first few times you want your money back, you get it no-questions-asked. The more of an outlier you become, the less likely you are to get your refund approved.
This is literally how every last supermarket delivery works in the U.K. You phone up, say it was damaged, they refund you no questions asked. The delivery people don’t have time to come back, they don’t have time to wait for you to inspect, so they just wear it.
I once got three bags of someone else’s shopping and they were “It’s yours now.”
I don’t understand why returns are so permissive, especially in industries that can’t/won’t resell returned products (eg fashion).
In my opinion, the onus is on you to do your due diligence when it comes to researching the correct product. Bought an HDMI cable instead of DisplayPort? You should have looked. Microwave doesn’t fit your space? Measuring tapes (and AR tools[0]) exist for a reason. Pants are too large? Use the damn fitting room[1] before buying them!
Of course, all three of those items are resalable after a return, but stores would most likely send 2/3 to be destroyed instead of refurbishment.
I just wish we could move away from the “customer is always right” deplorable tactics which create umpteen amounts of waste. Such as my coworker, who bought 10 dresses for a wedding and returned 9 of them after a test drive.
[0]: https://size.link
[1]: I get it, fitting rooms were closed during COVID. It doesn’t excuse the waste though (just shifts the blame).
Others have mentioned market forces, but I don't think that's the only reason. Personally, when buying online there are a lot of things that go wrong at little (or no) fault of the consumer.
Some examples are ambiguous (or missing!) info in a description, details or measurements that are slightly (or very) inaccurate, quality that is unacceptable but difficult to differentiate online (often because aggressively positive marketing), etc, etc.
If these weren't balanced out with liberal return policies, then I wouldn't buy nearly as much online. Literally anything over a few dozen dollars would start being suspect for me. I think this is also the case for many other people. Really, until Amazon started their incredibly pro-consumer policies and other venues followed suite, I really didn't purchase much online.
> Pants are too large? Use the damn fitting room[1] before buying them!
I once bought 3 identically labeled pairs of levis jeans. I tried one pair on, they fit fine.
The other 2 pairs fit dramatically different. Same size, same style, but apparently quality control at the factory was dramatically off.
> Microwave doesn’t fit your space? Measuring tapes (and AR tools[0]) exist for a reason.
I've seen (bought) appliances with mislabeled dimensions. Half an inch, not much, but the door to the laundry room wouldn't shut.
Also things like hookup placements for hoses are often not labeled on the box. Love it when those stick out way past the main body of the machine.
Heck I bought some picture hooks from Home Depot where the included nails stuck out farther then the hooks did, making the entire product useless given the purpose of it was to distribute weight on a hook and not directly on a nail. (Impressive fail there...)
> Such as my coworker, who bought 10 dresses for a wedding and returned 9 of them after a test drive.
Having a "try at home" scheme is going to be an effective solution for this problem. Amazon does this for fashion items.
"What socks/shoes/bra/necklace/earring combos go with this" is not an easy question to answer w/o having a piece to try on at home. Heck just seeing how clothing looks in different lighting. Fitting rooms would benefit from adjustable color balances in their lighting, an outfit meant to be worn outside in the sun may look very different under a store's yellow or blue lighting.
> I just wish we could move away from the “customer is always right”
Some customers abuse the rules, but I'd best that most customers just want to buy a product that makes them happy. If stores are not doing a good job matching customers up to those products, then the stores need to adjust their sales strategy.
In your specific example with clothing, there are two good reasons:
1. There's vanity sizing going on (e.g. 30" pants actually have a 32" waist due to vanity-sizing) and measurements provided may not be consistent throughout batches. These are still handmade items, just not artisanal.
2. Fabric drapes differently, so what looks good on a model shots with the clothing meticulously pinned, may look different when you actually wear it.
Also, I assume another reason for a lax return policy is that the margins are large enough to support it. Or retailers expect that most customers won't take advantage of it (until they do, like REI).
The worst offenders I have known about vanity sizing have generally been fairly small. My grandmother, for example, was without doubt a size 6 but would never buy anything that wasn't listed as a size 4. I have had two girlfriends who were similarly annoying--the clothing I bought them was clearly dead-on the correct size when they tried it on, but they wouldn't wear it because it was a size "too large" (they didn't last long as girlfriends).
By contrast, the smallest and largest women I have known simply wanted something that fit correctly regardless of the "labeled size".
Buying 10 dresses to keep one is not a ‘deplorable customer is always right’ tactic. You can’t reasonably purchase a wedding dress via due diligence, you have to try them on. The returned dresses should be able to be resold.
In addition to what everyone else wrote, note that your proposal is enormously economically inefficient. The businesses that sell microwaves are much better positioned to... well, sell microwaves... than the average consumer. They are the least-cost avoider of the social harm of things going to waste (which is what happens when unwanted item X doesn't get bought off Facebook Marketplace or Craigslist or whatever and the original purchaser finally tosses it).
If items are going to go unused, it makes economic sense for them to be sold on the secondary market. If they are going to be sold, it makes economic sense that they be sold by an entity that is good at selling them. The original merchant has a significant comparative advantage in selling items it already sells compared to any given consumer.
If my competitor has two out of three sales ending in returns, then I can sell for a third of the price by not offering returns. That's another way of having a competitive market.
But also, I don't find this argument particularly compelling. "It is how it is. It can never be any other way. Because all the things that make it how it is won't let it."
It's the same reason you see companies advertising risk-free money-back guarantees:
Buying something feels less risky if you believe you have recourse if it doesn't work out. Practically speaking, if a company can raise sales by 20% with a liberal return policy but 5% of purchases are actually returned, they may still come out ahead.
Long-term, having a return policy also signals that the company is interested in taking care of the customer and building a relationship. This is why you see brands like REI building a reputation on top of their generous return policy. People (on average, not everyone of course) will actually pay a small premium to shop from a company with a return policy.
REI has a crazy return policy, but attempts to resell everything that comes back. You can buy boots, through-hike the Appalachian Trail in them, and bring them back for a full refund. REI will put them on the shelf in the clearance section at a discount. Not sure if they finally dispose of things if they never sell, or if they just keep increasing the discount until someone finally takes it, but it's probably the latter. I don't go to my local store often enough to try to keep track of how long things have been there (not have I asked an employee, which would probably be the more direct way to acquire that information).
I find it weird that someone would argue for a worse retail experience. People make mistakes, it's great that people can return stuff that it turns out they don't need or won't work.
As to why retailers do it, I think it's a combination of:
a. Regulations - many jurisdictions have a requirement that retailers accept returns for some period. This is great because it makes fraud on the retailer's part extremely unprofitable - customers can just return fraudulently marketed products.
b. Competition - one thing that both Walmart and Amazon did was lower the bar for returns. In the 90s Walmart would often accept returns even without a receipt, which was a competitive advantage against other retailers that had more restrictive policies. Amazon did something similar for online retail by paying for shipping of returned items.
c. Encouraging impulse buys - Having a high bar for researching purchases means that impulse buys are much less likely. If you're in a store and you see a microwave you really like, knowing that you can return it makes it more likely you will buy it right then and there. If you have to go home and confirm a bunch of dimensions, it's more likely you won't return for the microwave as emotions will have cooled.
Edit: Addressing fashion specifically. There are many factors that can make something that works in a fitting room turn out to later be ill suited.
First, it's not uncommon to be buying a top or pants to go with other clothing in one's wardrobe. Unless you bring all that stuff with you when you go shopping, it's only possible to guess whether things will work out while in a fitting room. There's also a level of wishful thinking that can happen when trying on clothes - where you make it fit by sucking in your gut or something that can mask the fact that clothing won't work. Long term comfort is also impossible to ascertain in a fitting room. This is especially applicable to shoes - where they might be comfy for the 5 minutes in the store, but start to hurt after 30 minutes to an hour.
Finally, it's impossible to tell how much something will shrink in the wash when you buy it. Some stuff that fits perfectly "off the rack" will no longer fit properly after it has been through the washer/dryer.
GP's post also discounts cases where the manufacturer is just wrong about a spec.
I once ordered a custom aquarium. 200+ gallons, over 400 pounds of glass. The sizes were standard, custom part was for drilled holes for plumbing. The manufacturer advertised the aquarium as X inches by Y inches foot print. I built a stand for that size, but it turns out the manufacturer was half an inch off in each direction.
I couldn't return the aquarium since it had been made custom, but the manufacturer delivered me a product I couldn't use with the stand I built. The stands have to be built very specifically to transfer weight to the floor. Filled, the aquarium was over 3000 pounds, being off by half an inch was catastrophic. I had to tear apart the stand I built and rebuild it to support it.
Manufacturers can be wrong, manufacturers can lie. A microwave might fit your cabinet on a spec sheet, but not when it's delivered. Or something else might make it a poor fit (i.e., it fits, but requires clearance you don't have for the door hinge to swing).
It's called the Uniform Commercial Code and it exists to protect consumers and to get us to spend more. I agree that it can get pretty ridiculous with generous return policies. I've worked for 3 retailers, and I've seen some shit. Who returns milk two months later??
Surely your coworker is an outlier. Feels like what you're describing is a great opportunity for a small amount of data analysis to allow companies to be gracious with customers who genuinely made a mistake and customers abusing the system.
Weight... There was a time my friend was rather displeased with Amazon with how they treated their small company. So they wrote a script to find all the heaviest items they had that allowed 1 or 2 day shipping. Over the course of a month they ordered nearly 2 tons of safes and other heavy objects with express delivery options. They returned most (yep they sent them the label to ship back a 500 lb rifle safe) but gave away some of the safes to friends and donated some of the furniture.
Most of the SKUs they ordered are no longer eligible for prime delivery. This was several years ago.
Anecdotal, but I heard from a friend that one of his friends was able to get a $2000 laptop on Amazon by complaining that the screen was cracked (it wasn't) and they were told to just keep it. They were then issued a full refund.
It's definitely not just weight - I ordered two different sizes of high-visibility mesh vests (basically almost weightless) and when I went to return one, Amazon told me to keep it. I think it was about a $10-12 item.
The only other time this has happened for me was with some wine glasses; one out of the four in the package (single stock unit) was broken and they said I should keep the item. I guess in general they're not interested in receiving broken glass returns.
On the other hand, I got a hair pomade in a small glass jar that broke during shipping. I tried to get a refund option without returning, but wouldn't let me. So I sent a plastic bag full of hair pomade and broken glass back to Amazon...
The only reason to ask for the 3 glasses back would be to make sure you don't intentionally break one (or claim one was broken) to get the remaining ones for free.
Whether it's glass or not, as soon as it's not resellable as the original product it becomes worse than worthless. There is no sane way for them to deal with a SKU of "3 glasses", total quantity: 1.
OK sure; but they ask for returns of stuff that's just plain dead-on-arrival, which is just as bad, if not worse.
I ordered some batteries for portable two-way radios. Some of them arrived completely dead (zero volts; high impedance at the charging terminals) and sure enough they want them back even after I indicate they're bad.
This is relatively standard for mattresses. Too many regulations surrounding their resale so many places will just ask you to "pretty please" donate it so they can write it off as a donation.
I find it odd that one item has so many regulations but others that I consider in the same category don't. I can return towels and bathing suits for example. Why are mattresses so heavily regulated like this but other items with similar surfaces for problem are not?
Price is probably a factor. Mattresses are expensive, making it more worth to screw people over with them, and making it worse for the person who got screwed.
Specifically, bed bugs are very, very hard to kill once they infest something like a mattress. When they are dormant, they're almost invisible and almost indestructible. There is no effective way to remove an infestation from a mattress that doesn't either destroy the mattress or involve very toxic and/or illegal chemicals. (DDT was really the only effective pesticide for them, but that turned out to also really fuck up ecosystems, so we banned it)
Sometimes it's shipping costs. I bought a treadmill and the heartrate monitor was flaky so I called Amazon to get a return label and I was offered something like $250 to keep it.
I assume it's shipping cost. as well I bought a Timex watch for about 30 to 50 euros, and the calendar broke on it in a couple of weeks. Contacted Amazon.co.uk before I went to bed, and the next morning they told me to keep the watch and they'd send me a new one.
I'm guessing that me shipping that watch from Finland to the UK would've cost way too much.
I did have to ship in a broken Seagate HDD back to Amazon.de on their dime though, so it's not just them not wanting broken goods back. Although that might also be Seagate wanting it back for warranty purposes even though I went through Amazon?
I think warranty process, whether it's sold by Amazon vs fulfilled by them (the latter being charged for return shipping, likely) and whether they think it's "actually OK and can be resold" all factor into it.
What would be sneaky would be for UPS to sell Amazon things that look to the customer like a return label, but they just throw it in the trash without shipping it ...
This could be the final defeat of quality control. I remember that quality control was originally fueled by consumerism: Toyota and Honda wanted to sell more cars. People bought more gadgets because they were confident that they'd work.
Now the consumer is the quality control department. There's no reason to make quality goods if you can cut costs to the point where you can afford to give refunds and eat the loss.
For myself, a free refund doesn't really solve the problem, since I value my time and often need something right away. I don't think it would work for industrial suppliers like McMaster-Carr and Digi-Key. I really can't afford to wait for a second or third try when I need a part and a project is being held up.
Everyone's talking about goods being so worthless that suppliers don't want them back, but the answer seems different to me: blatant abuse of return policies must necessarily be so small in proportion to real sales that seriously fighting it just isn't worth anyone's time.
Similarly, really pursuing shoplifters who are dealing in the hundreds of dollars of physical goods just isn't worth it -- because a seemingly high enough number of customers aren't malicious and do pay the bill with no hassle.
It must be so if a 1-5 cent margins can translate to enough sales to cover writing off the merchandise grifters want to get a hold of as well as torching the stuff that slips past QA.
Successful merchandisers should establish a price point, customer demographic, and margin that maximizes their potential “good”(non-abusing) customers and controls/minimizes nefarious types.
Walmart’s fraud dept looks much different than Nordstrom’s I would suspect, but both know their respective landscapes and successfully navigate them.
Just had a taco salad combo from the red haired girl fast food chain. It's made out of 10 individual plastic parts (salad bowl and cover, sour cream cup, nacho chips bag, chili cup cover, fork and fork packaging, salsa cup, water bottle and cap), 2 cardboard (fries and chili cup), a cover for sour cream (unidentified material) and an aluminum cover for the salsa cup. I feel sick now.
That's because the lettuce in the salad was supplied with so little margin that the $1/hour migrant workers harvesting it aren't given anywhere sensible to defecate.
Migrant workers in my area (eastern-central Canada) are getting legal minimum wage ($14 to $15 per hour). Some may be abused and /or mismanaged, so are many locals working for minimum wage. That kind of seasonal revenue can be a blessing for families in Mexico or Guatemala, feeding them year long. That being said, I know their situation is not ideal. Thanks for making me reflect on the people feeding us.
I tried to purchase lunch from the red haired girl a couple of weeks ago, and after waiting in line for 20 minutes I left and went to see the clown (where I got to wait another 10 minutes).
Lowering prices would achieve the desired effect, not raising them. Unsold inventory is a cost for the company... so better to make it not worth it to the consumer to drive back to the store for less money.
in ecommerce we've done this for years. unhappy customer and return request? ok they keep it we hope you can review us well. You'd be surprised how this turns into 5 star reviews, higher viral coefficient, and on another type of product launch a customer that trusts us and buys even though wasn't thrilled on the first product. This is simply LTV vs a sale.
This is not really that surprising. Most items that are returned are never resold as "new" anyway. Return goods are thrown in the trash right away or sold with a discount in their own stores or sold to discounters.
They just offered return shipping as a service to the customer. It was all smoke and mirrors in the first place. If return shipping cost more than selling to discounters or handling the trash they will just let you keep the goods.
The damage Amazon, Zara, Primark and the likes are doing to this world is gigantic. Destroying the environment, tearing down worker rights, using close to slave labour, shipping their trash to poor countries, wasting fuel and resources.
I used to love REI because of their return policy. But I guess they had to stop doing it because you’d get these jerks that would buy a pair of climbing shoes, use them for a season and then come back and demand a new pair. It kind of pissed me off.
Only allow customers with high internal ratings to not bring back unwanted items. Customers with low trust could have their merchandise bid out to a third party that would deal with returns/inventory/etc.
I had Amazon do this reciently. Had a pair of side tables arrive damaged, asked for a return label, and they just credited my account and told me to keep or donate them.
Absolutely. My roommate at the time received his order, as well as a gigantic projector screen he absolutely did not order. This was 2014 or 2015. Once he contacted Amazon, they told him just to keep it.
That's for the same reason. The way books are sold works like this:
1. The publisher prints a whole pile of them.
2. Booksellers order a bunch. Because both publisher and bookseller want to maximize sales and avoid turning away a customer because they don't have enough copies of the book, the bookseller orders more than they expect to sell.
3. Once the sales have tapered off, the bookseller is stuck with unsold merchandise. They could send them back to the publisher, but the last thing in the world the publisher wants is more copies of a product they themselves can mass manufacture. So, instead, the bookseller just destroys them and tells the publisher how many weren't sold so they can be refunded.
4. Of course, a nefarious bookshop could simply claim that the books were unsold and then get to sell books that they didn't pay for and pocket the profit. To prevent that, the publisher requires them to cut the covers off and ship those back. Shipping just the covers is much cheaper than shipping the entire book and serves to ensure that every book was indeed not sold. Then the bookseller trashes the rest of the book.
5. Of course, this scheme only works if the bookseller can't sell a coverless book. So the publisher prints the warning inside the book to remind customers not to buy them like that.