|
|
|
ashington Post
November 7, 2004
Some Shoppers Find Fewer Happy Returns
Databases Limit 'Excessive' Exchanges
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Darlene Salerno considers herself a loyal customer of the Express
clothing chain, shelling out roughly $2,000 for its trendy outfits
each year for the past decade. On a recent shopping trip, she bought a
tank top, a button-down shirt and some khaki pants, but realized when
she got home that she had similar items in her closet. So a few days
later she took them back to the store. She presented the items, the
receipt and waited for her money.
Instead, the saleswoman handed her a slip of paper that said "RETURN
DECLINED" and told her to call the toll-free number at the bottom for
more information. She phoned and was informed her account showed
"excessive" returns.
As the holiday shopping season gets into full swing, a number of major
retailers -- including KB Toys and Sports Authority, according to
store personnel -- are rolling out electronic systems that weigh the
number of returns and exchanges a person has made, the dollar value of
the items, and the dates of the transactions to decide whether a
consumer should be granted another. The systems are designed to catch
shoplifters and those who "wardrobe," wearing clothes and then
returning them for a full refund.
But Salerno, 26, a receptionist at a Manhattan financial firm, said
she falls under neither category. She returns things often because she
buys things often. She said she feels she has done nothing wrong --
the clothes were never worn and the tags were still attached -- but
that she was treated like a criminal.
"I'm embarrassed to go into the store," Salerno said. "I love their
clothes, but I'm afraid to shop there now."
As more personal information is collected into databases, computers
have been handed increasing power to make decisions about our everyday
lives. The technological systems aim to solve costly and important
business problems, but the proliferation of these "electronic
blacklists" has alarmed consumer and privacy advocacy groups who say
many databases have incomplete, incorrect or misleading information.
"Technology has made it cheap to do all kinds of surveillance and
watch over people and make sure they obey the rules. But when a system
makes a mistake, what can you do?" said Richard Smith, an Internet
security and privacy consultant.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 gives consumers rights
concerning information used to make decisions about credit, insurance,
employment or other services. Other federal laws impose disclosure
requirements on information collected by the medical establishment or
the financial services industry. But increasingly, companies are
creating databases not envisioned by such regulations, and there is
debate about which laws, if any, apply.
Peggy Twohig, assistant director of the Division of Financial
Practices of the Federal Trade Commission, which administers the Fair
Credit Act, said whether a particular information system is covered by
it "depends on the particular facts of each system, and can be a
complex legal question."
Among the databases being created is one for landlords that purports
to list renters who have been evicted. Others claim to identify
"known" spammers. St. Louis-based Talx Corp., meanwhile, has compiled
more than 100 million employee records that contain names of
companies, dates of employment and job titles. More than 1,000 firms,
including American Airlines, FedEx Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Kmart
Corp., Marriott International Inc., Microsoft Corp. and PepsiCo Inc.,
make use of the service to speed along the screening process for
potential new hires.
But workers worry that some companies, for instance, use the word
"inactive" to refer to people who have left the company for any
reason; other companies use "terminated," a word that some employees
have argued has negative connotations. Perhaps the most common
complaint is that job titles are incorrect. One woman, Shelli
Isiminger of Dover, Del., said one of her former employers reported
that she was a "supervisor" rather than a "call center manager," a big
distinction in her industry and one she worries has cost her jobs.
"To have a discrepancy, to make it seem like I inflated my title, is a
kiss of death," she said.
Mike Smith, vice president for marketing at Talx, said that the
company tries to facilitate communication between employees and
employers but that it considers itself an agent for the employers and
that any changes to records must be made through them.
Another company, DoctorsKnowUs.com, created a database of people who
have filed malpractice claims as a resource for doctors. John S.
Jones, a radiologist from Kaufman, Tex., who spent seven years
compiling the information for the site, said he took it offline after
some patients complained that it was impossible to differentiate
between those with legitimate claims and those with frivolous ones,
and that all could be denied care by those using the list. Since then,
however, Jones has received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from
doctors who want the site back online, and he said in an interview
that he is considering resurrecting it.
"It was public information. . . . I was simply aggregating it," he
said. "The site was mischaracterized as a blacklist."
A spokesman for Limited Brands Inc., which owns the Express stores,
declined to answer questions about its computerized return
authorization system. Mark R. Hilinski, a co-founder of the Return
Exchange Inc., an Irvine, Calif.-based company that provides
technology for the retail chain, said the computer denies returns to 1
to 2 percent of customers at most stores. He said even though the
database is not subject to the requirements of the Fair Credit Act,
his company provides consumers a free copy of their report when they
ask and it gives them an opportunity to correct inaccurate data. He
added that very few have disputed the information.
"The system is often highly reliable. We have a very fair system to
make us aware of any discrepancies they think they found in their
report," said Hilinski, senior vice president of sales and marketing.
He said the company's privacy policy prevents him from commenting on
individual experiences. The company's criteria for judging returns
varies from retailer to retailer and is not disclosed because it might
inadvertently aid those who want to abuse the system. It's possible,
the company said, that a return rejected one day could come in the
next day and be approved.
Hilinski added that the company is not aggregating return data from
multiple retailers but that there has been interest from clients who
want to share return information with one another.
Return fraud has been a major drain on retailers' coffers. Richard
Hollinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Florida in
Gainesville, said retailers in 2003 lost nearly $30 billion, or 1.7
percent of sales, because of fraud and that about half of that may be
related to bad returns. In recent years, scammers have used the
Internet to launder the money -- people steal merchandise, return it
for credit slips at stores, then turn those credit slips into cash by
selling them at a discount on eBay or other online auction sites.
Retailers like the Limited are f
|
| |
| |
On 7 Nov 2004 06:58:26 -0800, MrPepper11@go.com (MrPepper11) wrote:
Darlene Salerno considers herself a loyal customer of the Express
clothing chain, shelling out roughly $2,000 for its trendy outfits
each year for the past decade. On a recent shopping trip, she bought a
tank top, a button-down shirt and some khaki pants, but realized when
she got home that she had similar items in her closet. So a few days
later she took them back to the store. She presented the items, the
receipt and waited for her money.
Instead, the saleswoman handed her a slip of paper that said "RETURN
DECLINED" and told her to call the toll-free number at the bottom for
more information. She phoned and was informed her account showed
"excessive" returns. The systems are designed to catch
shoplifters and those who "wardrobe," wearing clothes and then
returning them for a full refund.
Heh heh - that's GREAT!!
This should put an end to the people who abuse the return privilege,
essentially getting a "free rental" of some item for a few days and
then returning it for a full refund. I knew guys in rock bands who
would go in to Radio Shaft, buy some cables, mics, strobe lights, etc.
on Friday, use them for their weekend shows, and then return
everything on Monday.
But Salerno, 26, a receptionist at a Manhattan financial firm, said
she falls under neither category. She returns things often because she
buys things often. She said she feels she has done nothing wrong --
the clothes were never worn and the tags were still attached -- but
that she was treated like a criminal.
"I'm embarrassed to go into the store," Salerno said. "I love their
clothes, but I'm afraid to shop there now."
Here's a clue: learn to figure out what you like BEFORE you buy it. If
you only buy the things you like, you won't have to return anything
unless it's defective.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
As more personal information is collected into databases, computers
have been handed increasing power to make decisions about our everyday
lives. The technological systems aim to solve costly and important
business problems, but the proliferation of these "electronic
blacklists" has alarmed consumer and privacy advocacy groups who say
many databases have incomplete, incorrect or misleading information.
While generally true, this returns database is hardly a good example.
If you don't abuse the return privilege (and that's exactly what it
is, a PRIVILEGE) then you won't be affected by this particular
database at all.
Among the databases being created is one for landlords that purports
to list renters who have been evicted.
Nothing wrong with that.
Others claim to identify "known" spammers.
DEFINITELY nothing wrong with that!
But for all the money and effort retailers have spent on this
high-tech system, there appears to be a low-tech loophole, Salerno
discovered. After giving up on trying to clear her record with the
company, she enlisted the help of a friend, who was able to return the
unwanted clothes without hassle.
LOL!!
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
Washington Post
November 7, 2004
Some Shoppers Find Fewer Happy Returns
Databases Limit 'Excessive' Exchanges
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Darlene Salerno considers herself a loyal customer of the Express
clothing chain, shelling out roughly $2,000 for its trendy outfits
each year for the past decade. On a recent shopping trip, she bought a
tank top, a button-down shirt and some khaki pants, but realized when
she got home that she had similar items in her closet. So a few days
later she took them back to the store. She presented the items, the
receipt and waited for her money.
Instead, the saleswoman handed her a slip of paper that said "RETURN
DECLINED" and told her to call the toll-free number at the bottom for
more information. She phoned and was informed her account showed
"excessive" returns.
snip
So, she buys so much #@($ that she doesn't even know what's in her closet.
I get the feeling she simply likes to shop and buys at a whim without
thinking about a purchase. She's the perfect consumer in a consumer driven
society. Except that she wants to return the #@($ after the "shoppers high"
is gone. That's not good for a consumer driven society, so it only figures
that companies will come up way to limit returned items. Perhaps she might
give a little more consideration to purchases in the future.
|
| |
| |
On 7 Nov 2004 06:58:26 -0800, MrPepper11@go.com (MrPepper11) wrote:
(snip)
Here's a clue: learn to figure out what you like BEFORE you buy it. If
you only buy the things you like, you won't have to return anything
unless it's defective.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
(snip)
I'll second that rant. If I am buying hard goods from a supply house, either
mail order or walk-in, and I return an item for any reason other than it
being defective, I get hit with a 15 per cent restocking fee. I have <no>
problem with that- they have costs, and it gives me incentive to make sure I
am purchasing the correct items in the correct amount. Civilian stores
should maybe adopt the same principle. Unless defective or the wrong size,
in which case you get the correct item in exchange, you pay to return.
I <hate> shopping in stores aimed at impulse shoppers, especially clothing
stores. Takes forever to wade through the dreck to find what I want.
Somewhere out there must be a web vendor that only stocks basic stuff for
curmudgeons like me, at a decent price.
aem sends...
|
| |
| |
"Scott en Aztln" wrote:
While generally true, this returns database is hardly a good example.
If you don't abuse the return privilege (and that's exactly what it
is, a PRIVILEGE) then you won't be affected by this particular
database at all.
Returning items in BRAND NEW CONDITION is not a privilege. It is
a store policy, and one which can influence whether people shop
at a given store (for example, I would almost never buy at
Burlington Coat Factory because they do not give cash refunds --
store credit only). If the store is going to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether they will actually honor their posted
policy, then they need to post that information, and people can
make a decision whether to continue shopping there.
In the case of clothes shopping, maybe the person doesn't want
to bother trying on clothes at the store, and wants to take it
home instead. I really see no reason why there should be a
problem with that? In my case, maybe I see something a week or
two later than I like better, or that's cheaper.
Bottom line is the store has to follow their posted return
policy and can't start saying "except for you" when you try to
utilize it, even if it's for the tenth time that month.
Bill
|
| |
| |
Scott en Aztln <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> in news:m9mso0lm4i8hhsito6l6qe8jstmmhpu9hn@4ax.com:
Here's a clue: learn to figure out what you like BEFORE you buy it. If
you only buy the things you like, you won't have to return anything
unless it's defective.
ideally, yes, but too many packages are "welded" shut, and the outer box includes only sham info. the store could arrange with
vendor or mrf rep to laminate to the display a copy of the instructoins, but i can't recall ever seeing that.
then when you open the box, you discover a couple of disclaimers, limitations in the literature. and/or you discover the actual
product in your hands just doesn't physically fit.. or has shoddy construction/ components.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
I spend *a lot of time* researching as well as I can, in order to avoid buying the wrong item, because too many stores make you
go through an hour of rigmarole to return things. essentially these stores get a good percentage of free $10 or 15 sales, when
customers make the best guess as to suitability, and buy things that aren't worth the time to return.
those 'dollar stores' are a good example of stores that probably make most of their *profit* off of "risky" noname crap
merchandise. the quality items are infrequent among the store's stock, because they function as loss leaders.
|
| |
| |
rPepper11@go.com (MrPepper11) in news:57cfd534.0411070658.18a9bc3c@posting.google.com:
Darlene Salerno considers herself a loyal customer of the Express
clothing chain, shelling out roughly $2,000 for its trendy outfits
each year for the past decade.
2k/yr since 16?
On a recent shopping trip, she bought a
tank top, a button-down shirt and some khaki pants, but realized when
she got home that she had similar items in her closet. So a few days
later she took them back to the store. She presented the items, the
receipt and waited for her money.
Instead, the saleswoman handed her a slip of paper that said "RETURN
DECLINED" and told her to call the toll-free number at the bottom for
more information. She phoned and was informed her account showed
"excessive" returns.
What kind of return policy is printed on the back of the receipt?
As the holiday shopping season gets into full swing, a number of major
retailers -- including KB Toys and Sports Authority, according to
store personnel -- are rolling out electronic systems that weigh the
number of returns and exchanges a person has made, the dollar value of
the items, and the dates of the transactions to decide whether a
consumer should be granted another. The systems are designed to catch
shoplifters and those who "wardrobe," wearing clothes and then
returning them for a full refund.
Pay with cash. If the store asks to enter your name into the register, just tell them the usual, "Bug M Not"
But Salerno, 26, a receptionist at a Manhattan financial firm, said
she falls under neither category. She returns things often because she
buys things often. She said she feels she has done nothing wrong --
the clothes were never worn and the tags were still attached -- but
that she was treated like a criminal.
In recent years, cunning high class criminals have adapted to this potential weakness in store return policies. Criminals now
hold "Tux, Tie, and Tags On" parties. :-)
"I'm embarrassed to go into the store," Salerno said. "I love their
clothes, but I'm afraid to shop there now."
I wonder if these stores have properly 'profiled' the "Clothes Renter" type of bad customers? Do those customers *ever keep*
anything they buy?
As more personal information is collected into databases, computers
have been handed increasing power to make decisions about our everyday
lives.
Therefore, never step on the cracks. :-)
The technological systems aim to solve costly and important
business problems, but the proliferation of these "electronic
blacklists" has alarmed consumer and privacy advocacy groups who say
many databases have incomplete, incorrect or misleading information.
"Technology has made it cheap to do all kinds of surveillance and
watch over people and make sure they obey the rules. But when a system
makes a mistake, what can you do?" said Richard Smith, an Internet
security and privacy consultant.
If this 'technology' isn't working well, can it be returned for a full refund? Ummm... check your fine print.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 gives consumers rights
concerning information used to make decisions about credit, insurance,
employment or other services. Other federal laws impose disclosure
requirements on information collected by the medical establishment or
the financial services industry. But increasingly, companies are
creating databases not envisioned by such regulations, and there is
debate about which laws, if any, apply.
Create databases of companies that use abusive databases.
Peggy Twohig, assistant director of the Division of Financial
Practices of the Federal Trade Commission, which administers the Fair
Credit Act, said whether a particular information system is covered by
it "depends on the particular facts of each system, and can be a
complex legal question."
Among the databases being created is one for landlords that purports
to list renters who have been evicted.
'purport'? if I was a landlord, I'd want the list to be correct.
Others claim to identify
"known" spammers. St. Louis-based Talx Corp., meanwhile, has compiled
more than 100 million employee records that contain names of
companies, dates of employment and job titles. More than 1,000 firms,
including American Airlines, FedEx Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Kmart
Corp., Marriott International Inc., Microsoft Corp. and PepsiCo Inc.,
make use of the service to speed along the screening process for
potential new hires.
But workers worry that some companies, for instance, use the word
"inactive" to refer to people who have left the company for any
reason;
is "inactive" a euphemism for 'lazy'?
other companies use "terminated," a word that some employees
have argued has negative connotations.
Former whistleblower, currently living the most ultimately humid climate and sporting concrete shoes.
Perhaps the most common
complaint is that job titles are incorrect. One woman, Shelli
Isiminger of Dover, Del., said one of her former employers reported
that she was a "supervisor" rather than a "call center manager," a big
distinction in her industry and one she worries has cost her jobs.
"To have a discrepancy, to make it seem like I inflated my title, is a
kiss of death," she said.
Mike Smith, vice president for marketing at Talx, said that the
company tries to facilitate communication between employees and
employers but that it considers itself an agent for the employers and
that any changes to records must be made through them.
Disclosure of official file would help. Better to haggle now, than haggle later.
Another company, DoctorsKnowUs.com, created a database of people who
have filed malpractice claims as a resource for doctors. John S.
Jones, a radiologist from Kaufman, Tex., who spent seven years
compiling the information for the site, said he took it offline after
some patients complained that it was impossible to differentiate
between those with legitimate claims and those with frivolous ones,
and that all could be denied care by those using the list. Since then,
however, Jones has received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from
doctors who want the site back online, and he said in an interview
that he is considering resurrecting it.
And patients could choose to use a db to avoid MDs who've had suits too often.
"It was public information. . . . I was simply aggregating it," he said.
"The site was mischaracterized as a blacklist."
A spokesman for Limited Brands Inc., which owns the Express stores,
declined to answer questions about its computerized return
authorization system. Mark R. Hilinski, a co-founder of the Return
Exchange Inc., an Irvine, Calif.-based company that provides
technology for the retail chain, said the computer denies returns to 1
to 2 percent of customers at most stores. He said even though the
database is not subject to the requirements of the Fair Credit Act,
his company provides consumers a free copy of their report when they
ask and it gives them an opportunity to correct inaccurate data. He
added that very few have disputed the information.
"The system is often highly reliable. We have a very fair system to
make us aware of an
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:54:00 GMT, Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
If you don't abuse the return privilege (and that's exactly what it
is, a PRIVILEGE) then you won't be affected by this particular
database at all.
Returning items in BRAND NEW CONDITION is not a privilege. It is
a store policy
As is this database.
and one which can influence whether people shop
at a given store
Of course. Once upon a time, all sales were final. Then some smart
businessman figured out that he could capitalize on impulse/fickle
buyers by allowing returns. Sure, he'd get some percentage of the
items back, but in the long run it increased his sales slightly.
Competition being what it is, other retailers followed suit, and it
evolved into the ultra-liberal return policies that most stores have
today. Hell, in some places, you can "return" an item without a
receipt (shoplifters love this one).
For a while this was OK, until people found ways to abuse the sysem.
Now that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way, people like
you are getting pissed. Yet you only have your fellow shoppers (and
shopLIFTERS) to blame for this policy shift. If people wouldn't abuse
the system, retailers wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves.
(for example, I would almost never buy at
Burlington Coat Factory because they do not give cash refunds --
store credit only).
I actually PREFER to shop at stores which don't accept returns; this
lessens the chances that the item I'm buying is a "rental" that
someone else purchased, used briefly, and then returned.
If the store is going to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether they will actually honor their posted
policy, then they need to post that information, and people can
make a decision whether to continue shopping there.
According to the story, the do post that info.
Bottom line is the store has to follow their posted return
policy and can't start saying "except for you" when you try to
utilize it, even if it's for the tenth time that month.
No problem - according to the story, they are changing the signs.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 04:44:14 +0000 (UTC), "Choise76Smu@EhOhEll.Net"
<Choise76Smu@EhOhEll.Net> wrote:
Scott en Aztln <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> in news:m9mso0lm4i8hhsito6l6qe8jstmmhpu9hn@4ax.com:
ideally, yes, but too many packages are "welded" shut, and the outer box includes only sham info. the store could arrange with
vendor or mrf rep to laminate to the display a copy of the instructoins, but i can't recall ever seeing that.
then when you open the box, you discover a couple of disclaimers, limitations in the literature. and/or you discover the actual
product in your hands just doesn't physically fit.. or has shoddy construction/ components.
That's what display models are for. If they don't have one, grab an
employee and have them open up a package for you. If they won't do
that, shop elsewhere.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
I spend *a lot of time* researching as well as I can, in order to avoid buying the wrong item, because too many stores make you
go through an hour of rigmarole to return things.
Yeah, I see the long lines at the front of the store as I walk in, and
I'm glad I don't have to stand in them. ;)
essentially these stores get a good percentage of free $10 or 15 sales, when
customers make the best guess as to suitability, and buy things that aren't worth the time to return.
BINGO. This is what started the whole liberal return policy kick among
retailers. However, it now appears that the return policies are a bit
TOO liberal, and retailers are starting to feel the effects on their
bottom lines. It's inevitable that they will respond and attempt to
protect themselves from abuse.
Bottom line, normal shoppers who use the return policy as it was
intended have nothing to fear. Only those who abuse the system (e.g.
shoplifters, or impulse shoppers who buy so many things they don't
even remember that they already have the identical outfit hanging in
their closet) are going to be affected.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
Scott en Aztln <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
Here's a clue: learn to figure out what you like BEFORE you buy it. If
you only buy the things you like, you won't have to return anything
unless it's defective.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
Yeah, but there are plenty of situations in which it's not possible to
evaluate an item until you get it home. For instance, I'm somewehat
hard of hearing - purchased and returned 9 cordless phones before I
found one with a volume control that worked for me. At every store, I
asked to plug in the phone and try it out, and was refused.
Not to mention the stuff that's shrink-wrapped and requires a chainsaw
to get it open. Store personnel are always happy to open it for you
prior to purchase. NOT.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:55:18 -0800, Steve <rwe@abq.inv> wrote:
Here's a clue: learn to figure out what you like BEFORE you buy it. If
you only buy the things you like, you won't have to return anything
unless it's defective.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
Yeah, but there are plenty of situations in which it's not possible to
evaluate an item until you get it home.
It's fine if you return things once in a while; the retailers aren't
objecting to that. As long as you don't do it so often as to be
abusive, you'll be fine even with the new database.
Have you ever made a mail-order purchase? Even if the vendor allows
returns, you're often on the hook for return shipping charges - so
you're probably a lot more careful about making sure that you REALLY
want the item. Just use the same care when purchasing in a local
store. Easy!
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:55:18 -0800, Steve <rwe@abq.inv> wrote:
Here's a clue: learn to figure out what you like BEFORE you buy it. If
you only buy the things you like, you won't have to return anything
unless it's defective.
I almost never return things to the store. If I buy something, it's
because I *know* it's something I want. I don't buy things on impulse,
get buyer's remorse, and then try to return it.
It's fine if you return things once in a while; the retailers aren't
objecting to that. As long as you don't do it so often as to be
abusive, you'll be fine even with the new database.
Have you ever made a mail-order purchase? Even if the vendor allows
returns, you're often on the hook for return shipping charges - so
you're probably a lot more careful about making sure that you REALLY
want the item. Just use the same care when purchasing in a local
store. Easy!
Not that easy. I normally do purchase stuff that there is
any doubt about how suitable it is from a store that has
a no questions asked free return system, just because
its hard to be sure that it is completely suitable without
actually getting it home and trying it etc. There's always
some possibility of a design problem that isnt obvious
until you try it for what you want to use it for.
Just another viable way of doing business.
Sure, some arseholes will certainly abuse it to get one
use out of something for free if thats all they need it for etc.
|
| |
| |
Scott en Aztln <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
It's fine if you return things once in a while; the retailers aren't
objecting to that. As long as you don't do it so often as to be
abusive, you'll be fine even with the new database.
How is a customer supposed to know what's considered abusive? Each
store will have their own evaluation? Obviously, there are gonna be
problems If the store policy becomes "maybe you can return this, or
maybe not."
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:06:47 -0800, Steve <rwe@abq.inv> wrote:
How is a customer supposed to know what's considered abusive?
Stop by the customer service desk and ask for a printed copy of the
store's return policy.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
"Scott en Aztln" wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:06:47 -0800, Steve <rwe@abq.inv> wrote:
Stop by the customer service desk and ask for a printed copy of the
store's return policy.
So if you went to the store and saw a sign which said (quoting
from the original post):
The new signs advertise the "Express Guarantee" and
say consumers have up to 60 days to return items. However, the
company's return policy also notes that it uses an "industry wide"
system to authorize returns and that "under certain circumstances we
reserve the right to deny returns."
How are you going to know if the purchase you just made can be
returned? Do you make things up to look stupid or does it come
out that way naturally? And might I ask, do you have a wife and
kids? If you did, you'd know that returning clothes is a fairly
commonplace thing. This is just a stupid policy on their part.
The story even says that the majority of the times that she
bought stuff, she ended up buying more stuff than she returned.
By all means, if you have someone who routinely returns over 90%
of what they buy, and there is evidence that it's worn, stop
letting them return it. But that does not seem to be the case
here.
Also, if you pay cash, and refuse to give them proof of who you
are when returning stuff, can they refuse to take the return?
Otherwise, they'd have no way of knowing who you are.
Bill
|
| |
| |
Scott en Aztln <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:06:47 -0800, Steve <rwe@abq.inv> wrote:
Stop by the customer service desk and ask for a printed copy of the
store's return policy.
Since you obviously didn't bother to even read the original post, I'm
going to re-post the relevant part here:
"The company's criteria for judging returns
varies from retailer to retailer and is not disclosed because it might
inadvertently aid those who want to abuse the system. It's possible,
the company said, that a return rejected one day could come in the
next day and be approved."
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:47:44 GMT, Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
"Scott en Aztln" wrote:
So if you went to the store and saw a sign which said (quoting
from the original post):
How are you going to know if the purchase you just made can be
returned?
I would stop by the customer service desk and get a printed copy of
the return policy. I would expect that policy to outline the
algorithm(s) used to determine wheher a given return was acceptable or
not. And I would make my purchase accordingly.
Do you make things up to look stupid or does it come
out that way naturally?
Ad Hominem attacks are a sure sign of a weak position.
The story even says that the majority of the times that she
bought stuff, she ended up buying more stuff than she returned.
By all means, if you have someone who routinely returns over 90%
of what they buy, and there is evidence that it's worn, stop
letting them return it. But that does not seem to be the case
here.
I'm sure the algorithms are pretty straightforward, common-sense sorts
of things. They no doubt take into account such factors as the amount
of profit the store has made on the customer, the losses they take on
the returned items, etc. For example, if a customer buys $100 worth of
merchandise, returns half of it, and then buys $75 worth of new stuff,
then that's a net win for the store - IFF that $50 worth of returned
merchandise can be resold for $50. If instead the returned merchandise
must be placed on the markdown table, and ultimately sold at a loss,
then thats a different story. There is not enough information in the
story to determine which is the case. It's highly likely that the
stores that are doing this aren't going to shoot themselves in the
foot with such an obvious error, however. If some random guy on USENET
can spot a flaw in the algorithm, then most likely the engineers who
developed the software can see it, too. :)
No, the only people who are going to be upset by this new return
policy are the people who abuse the system.
Also, if you pay cash, and refuse to give them proof of who you
are when returning stuff, can they refuse to take the return?
Otherwise, they'd have no way of knowing who you are.
Yep, that's definite loophole. Sounds like the way to go - IF you can
swing it.
Of course, I'm willing to bet that the majority of "abusive" shoppers
can't afford to pay cash for the things they buy - they charge all
those impulse purchases on their credit cards, and carry an
ever-growing balance from month to month. Or they stole the items in
the first place. ;)
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:55:37 GMT, Marcio Watanabe <Marcio@nospam.com>
wrote:
How is a customer supposed to know what's considered abusive?
Stop by the customer service desk and ask for a printed copy of the
store's return policy.
Since you obviously didn't bother to even read the original post, I'm
going to re-post the relevant part here:
"The company's criteria for judging returns
varies from retailer to retailer and is not disclosed because it might
inadvertently aid those who want to abuse the system. It's possible,
the company said, that a return rejected one day could come in the
next day and be approved."
If a store won't reveal the details of its algorithm to you, then you
have the complete freedom not to shop there. Explain that to the store
manager, and the company CEO if necessary. Occasionally management
does finally get the point. The fact that CompUSA got rid of its exit
vestibule goombahs is proof of this.
Personally, I think it's a mistake to keep the details of the
algorithm secret. If I owned that company, I would make the details
public and see what weaknesses people find. The algorithm will get a
lot better a lot faster that way. By keeping the rules a secret,
you'll only piss people off and erode customer goodwill - a BIG
mistake IMHO. If your algorithm is public, nobody can accuse you of
arbitrarily denying a return.
If being able to return things is important to you, I recommend that
you treat any store that refuses to fully disclose the details of its
return policy as if their policy was "all sales final" - that way you
won't be disappointed.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:11:41 -0800, Scott en Aztln
<slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
I would stop by the customer service desk and get a printed copy of
the return policy. I would expect that policy to outline the
algorithm(s) used to determine wheher a given return was acceptable or
not. And I would make my purchase accordingly.
What YOU expect and what you get often will not be what you expect to
get!
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 05:59:44 -0800, Scott en Aztln
<slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com>
I actually PREFER to shop at stores which don't accept returns; this
lessens the chances that the item I'm buying is a "rental" that
someone else purchased, used briefly, and then returned.
A few weeks ago, I bought a remote control "mouse" (a cat toy, not a
computer accessory) at PetCo.
I should have been clued in to the fact that it didn't work worth a crap
by the one that had obviously been opened up and put back on the shelf.
When I returned it, they didn't hesitate to give me a full refund, but
the phony acting the cashier did didn't impress me.
"I'll put this over here so it doesn't accidentally get put back on the
shelf".
Both PetSmart and PetCo have policies that their cashiers should show an
interest in the customers pet(s). Usually they'll ask something like
"What's your pet's name?" or something stupid like that - I've decided
to start acting when I respond now.
Any suggestions for witty replies are welcome.
I'm thinking of saying my cat's name is "John Kerry because he's such a
pussy". They'll either get real offended or they'll have a good
chuckle.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:54:00 GMT, Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net>
"Scott en Aztln" wrote:
Returning items in BRAND NEW CONDITION is not a privilege. It is
a store policy,
In a sense then, it's a privilege which some stores choose to confer on
their customers.
and one which can influence whether people shop
at a given store (for example, I would almost never buy at
Burlington Coat Factory because they do not give cash refunds --
store credit only). If the store is going to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether they will actually honor their posted
policy, then they need to post that information, and people can
make a decision whether to continue shopping there.
I'll agree that customer's should be informed of the policy - if I'm
ever in doubt about an item, I'll ask - and then I'll confirm that
there's no restocking penalty.
In the case of clothes shopping, maybe the person doesn't want
to bother trying on clothes at the store, and wants to take it
home instead. I really see no reason why there should be a
problem with that?
It temporarily depletes merchandise which other customers could be
purchasing and could make managing inventory levels difficult.
In my case, maybe I see something a week or
two later than I like better, or that's cheaper.
Bottom line is the store has to follow their posted return
policy and can't start saying "except for you" when you try to
utilize it, even if it's for the tenth time that month.
Fair enough - I wouldn't be surprised if there is language in there
somewhere to allow them to make exceptions.
Bill
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:37:16 -0800, Scott en Aztln
<slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com>
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
The only time I've ever abused a store's return policy was at Best Buy.
It was at least 10 years ago, and I wanted to copy some video tapes and
I only owned 1 VCR at the time.
I kept it about 5 days and returned it for full refund. 6 months or so
later, they had implemented a restocking fee.
I have a feeling other people must have been abusing it more than I.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 05:27:41 +0000 (UTC), "Choise76Smu@EhOhEll.Net"
<Choise76Smu@EhOhEll.Net>
MrPepper11@go.com (MrPepper11) in news:57cfd534.0411070658.18a9bc3c@posting.google.com:
2k/yr since 16?
It's quite possible with daddy's credit card.
What kind of return policy is printed on the back of the receipt?
I'm under the impression that many are. If you ever buy anything at
Circuit City, their receipts make War and Peace seem like a short story.
All I bought was a CD, but I had to get a shopping cart to make my way
out of the store with my receipt.
But it kept me from having to buy firewood for a whole winter one year.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known> wrote:
In a sense then, it's a privilege which some stores choose to confer on
their customers.
Unless the terms appear on the receipt, in which case I suspect it
could be called a contract.
|
| |
| |
"Scott en Aztln" wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:47:44 GMT, Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
I would stop by the customer service desk and get a printed copy of
the return policy. I would expect that policy to outline the
algorithm(s) used to determine wheher a given return was acceptable or
not. And I would make my purchase accordingly.
But they're not going to be able to tell you.
Do you make things up to look stupid or does it come
out that way naturally?
Ad Hominem attacks are a sure sign of a weak position.
No, it is merely a sense of frustration that you seem to post
with an extremely limited view of the real world, with the claim
that your personal situation is that of everyone else out there.
Just like your view of rebates being awful and that no one ever
gets them just because you've had problems with them.
I'm sure the algorithms are pretty straightforward, common-sense sorts
of things. They no doubt take into account such factors as the amount
of profit the store has made on the customer, the losses they take on
the returned items, etc. For example, if a customer buys $100 worth of
merchandise, returns half of it, and then buys $75 worth of new stuff,
then that's a net win for the store - IFF that $50 worth of returned
merchandise can be resold for $50. If instead the returned merchandise
must be placed on the markdown table, and ultimately sold at a loss,
then thats a different story.
She returned stuff the following week. This is not like
electronics (which appears to be what you are equating
everything to) where it gets marked down when returned. Clothing
gets put back on the rack and after a week it should be able to
be sold for the same price it was before.
No, the only people who are going to be upset by this new return
policy are the people who abuse the system.
Your definition of abuse is simply people who operate
differently than you think they should based on your narrow
minded view. You know what? For me, returning clothes is no big
deal either. I buy a shirt and pants every now and then and
rarely return stuff. But that's certainly not the case with my
wife and daughter. They buy stuff, they see it cheaper or else
see something they like better at another store, and return the
first one. And many other people do that as well. And if there
are stores that start considering what they do to be abuse, then
I can assure you they'll just stop shopping at those stores.
Maybe this woman was shopping on her lunch hour and had no time
to try on a bunch of stuff. So she bought more than she needed
and tried it on over the weekend and then returned what she
didn't want. What is so wrong with that? The article said
they're trying to stop people who wear something and then return
it. Great, do that. But they're going beyond that with this
policy.
Of course, I'm willing to bet that the majority of "abusive" shoppers
can't afford to pay cash for the things they buy - they charge all
those impulse purchases on their credit cards, and carry an
ever-growing balance from month to month. Or they stole the items in
the first place. ;)
Again, more narrow-minded opinionated garbage. Who cares how
they are paying for it anyway, so long as they don't default on
the credit card? If anything, the company should be thrilled to
have this person paying the minimum payment. And remember that
since the interest is based on average daily balance, they'll be
paying for the time they had the clothes prior to returning it.
So it actually makes more money for the store.
The bottom line here is that just because you cannot imagine a
situation where what this woman was doing would make sense to
you, does not give you the right to accuse her (or anyone else
who does the same thing) of doing anything other than taking
advantage of a posted store policy.
BTW, do you want to hear "abuse"? A friend of mine used to buy
extra stuff for her kids every year, and at the end of the
season she'd return the things they did not wear. And if you
want to accuse me of "abuse", last year, at a discount clothing
store I picked up a couple of suits for my son because I wasn't
sure which size he would need for his bar mitzvah and they were
having their semi-annual sale. I held onto both for a couple of
months and when we determined what size he actually needed, I
returned the other size. The store got use of my money for those
two months, and I was able to ensure that I got the suit at
their sale price. The store had no problem with my doing this
and I certainly had no saw nothing wrong with it.
Bill
|
| |
| |
In article <ai03p055cvljvo5fojag4a0llk4g5bharo@4ax.com>, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:
Both PetSmart and PetCo have policies that their cashiers should show an
interest in the customers pet(s). Usually they'll ask something like
"What's your pet's name?" or something stupid like that - I've decided
to start acting when I respond now.
Any suggestions for witty replies are welcome.
I'm thinking of saying my cat's name is "John Kerry because he's such a
pussy". They'll either get real offended or they'll have a good
chuckle.
If I was the cashier I'd respond "I don't know his name, but your brother
is over in the baboon cage" and watch you get real offended or have a good
chuckle.
|
| |
| |
| | |
