Slashdot Mirror
Retailers Deploy Databases Against Customers
A couple of people submitted this piece about retailers using databases to crack down on sub-optimal customers, such as those who return too many purchases to the store. Also has a few tidbits about other database blacklists that are available to companies. Customers avoid intrusive practices; although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
Pay with cash.
So are all those NYT stories going to be blacklisted from slashdot just because a registration is needed?
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Best Buy has been accused of doing this.
Any such database, whether internal or not, is a de facto consumer reporting system and should be subject to the same requirements of disclosure, the same rebuttal process, and the same government oversight as credit bureau reports.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
As a good customer you should seek alternate sources of the same product.
SF Gate Article
Google News search
As long as there exists a manual override to deal with exceptions and the same system is being used to highlight and reward model customers. It should be a system to improve shopping and not just to reduce risk from bad customers.
GPL Deconstructed
Sinclair noticed, why not broaden the effort? Remember RFID reactions?
Establishing a certification branding program for 'vendors that do not suck' might be effective.
"I'm sorry, sir, you can't return that sweater because you've already exceeded your maximum allowed returns for the year. If you'd like, we have sweater stretchers on sale in aisle 4 and dye in aisle 5; perhaps you can just make it into the size/color you want. THANK YOU for your continued business!"
I mean... really... I can see if they're going to only use it for some sort of fraud detection, but even then, how do you DO anything with that information?
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
"A couple of people submitted this piece about retailers using databases to crack down on sub-optimal customers, such as those who return too many purchases to the store."
I think it's called "customers who abuse you". But don't quote me on that. Besides we already covered this subject.
"Also has a few tidbits about other database blacklists that are available to companies. Customers avoid intrusive practices; although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration."
WHAT!? *looks at the header* Yup this is Slashdot.
Why doesn't everyone wait for the AC edition to get posted? Like we always do.
who needs to register when you use firefox + bugmenot
Cashier: I'm sorry, Mr. Constanza, you can't return this book.
George: Why not?
Cashier: It's been flagged. It's been in the bathroom.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
This really isn't new, it has been done at the store level forever. When I worked retail many years ago we would finger people who returned stuff excessively and deny them any further returns. So the only really new thing is the fact that it is automated, though I am sure the managers of a store have some level of override for this (THEY ALWAYS DO).
And remember if you don't like it, DON'T shop there. Voting with your dollar is the best way to tell a retailer you don't like something. So don't shop there and pen a letter to their corporate office telling them so. Don't yell at the local people, they have no control, don't email it is meaningless. Simply don't shop there and WRITE a snailmail letter to their corporate office.
"How about shop-lifting?"
My what big muscles you have. Lifting that heavy store all by yourself.
I mean, since when has any sort of people tracking system turned out to be good for the people being tracked?
Middle managers and company pressure generally means that any such thing will be used for bad, not good. And it will probably mean that you'll not only have this ridiculous thing called "credit" but also "credibility" with stores when it comes to purchasing and it will be completely up to them to decide if you are a good person or not.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
There will always be people who abuse policies. But, if you make it hard to do business with someone, they will stop doing business with you.
In this story, if the woman spent 2,000 bucks a year on cloths, say she returned 500 bucks worth in the same year, then the store is making 1500 from her. Now, since she has a bad feeling, and doesn't like to shop there anymore, she might only spend, 200-400 a year there, or maybe no money at all. So now instead of making 1500 a year on her they make much less. The returns she brought back could be resold anyway, so the business is not taking a loss.
There are two things; first they want people to buy on impulse, (such as clothing) and they must realize impulse will fade away sometimes. Returns are to be expected.
Another point is that returns are apart of business. They just are, and they must be ready for them. If someone conducts a lot of business with them, they will probably have more returns then a casual customer who only buys once in a while.
-anyhow, bad Juju,
Whenever I read a story like this, I can't help but long for the days when you didn't have to worry about companies gathering data on the side and blacklisting you. Sure, you still had to worry about the government (McCarthyism anyone?) but at least back then you could go to a store and be picky if you wanted, return things often, and not worry that one day they'd be dicks to you and tell you that if you keep returning things, you wouldn't be welcome back.
I get the feeling that 50 odd years ago, no one would have expected we'd long for the days of McCarthyism.
those of you who like science fiction, kurt vonnegut or are worried about these types of situations should read PLAYER PIANO by kurt vonnegut. It was written in 1952 (!) i think, and is about computers making decisions about which jobs are important, and which jobs are unnecessary. Yeah, it's a worst case scenario, but computers and databases are just going to become more and more prevelant in our lives.
I think a lot of retail sales workers will cheer for this. I used to work in retail (admittedly a long time ago) at Radio Shack, and I can't count the number of times people borrowed TVs and speakers. Superbowl time was the worst, people would buy a TV to watch the game and then return it a couple of days later. They didn't even have the decency to lie about it, either, they admitted that they only wanted it long enough to watch the game, but Radio Shack policy was to take it back, no questions asked.
I'd be curious to know how difficult it would be for a clerk to flag a customer as 'bad' after having received customer flak.
Having worked retail, I know I'd be tempted.
I don't really see anything wrong with this. Companies should be able to participate in any legal activity they want to, they just need to make it explicitly clear to the customers before they purchase, a large sign would do.
When I go into the convenient store on the corner it has a large sign that says, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." So I already know the consequence of entering the store without shoes.
The problem occurs when stores don't do a good job of letting their customers know their policies... if the store policies are available to customers (which they are often not) it's typically printed on a receipt, or even worse, in that light blue writing some receipts have on the back.
Most stores probably think that something like putting a large sign that says, "We track all your purchases and you are only allowed X number of returns per year." would be bad for business, but when people realize the store policies by getting surprised by them like the lady in the story, that sort of things is absolutely horrible for business.
sig.
Was struck that the systems might be pretty simplistic in nature.
I could think of a few things to add:
Time since purchase (if only a day less likely to have been 'wardrobed'), returns relative to total purchases, quantity of total purchase made and not returned per customer etc.
Local variance on return policies is of course not possible, as this opens the store to charges of various types of bias.
I for example shop at Amazon a lot, even if their prices are higher. Why? Because I am happy and comfortable with their return policy among other things. Looking at my order history I notice I have been going their for seven years now, and my purchasing power has probably increased over that time.
A shame to lose long term / loyal customers.
That said, I had a friend who worked at a name brand clothing store, and people flat out do steal and return items. Or simply steal. That would drive me nuts.
The world use to be a place where most stores actually knew personally each of their customers, but those days are long gone at the same time as the village store. In those days the shopkeeper knew who to sell to and how, today the only way to get this information from among the thousands or millions of customers is the use of a CRM.
There was obviously an intermediate period between the demise of the village store and the introduction of these computer systems in question, so this thing seems new.
But in the end.. the store wants to make money by making sure it gets maximum benefit of their customers.. like any other company...
I would wager that somewhere down the road the blow back from these tactics will appear.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Alright, here goes my karma...
All I can say is "it's about time". Having worked in retail a goodly portion of my life (thankfully not any more) all I can say on reading this is that a system like this is really overdue.
It's a small percentage of customers (my best guess, based on my experience, is about 2-3%) that abuse return privileges and monopolize the time of salespeople, but the percentage that does costs so much money and time that it's unbelievable...far more than the store would ever make in profit from these folks over a lifetime of shopping. To look at it another way, these groups of problem customers drive up costs just as much as shoplifters do (and in fact any retail business loses far more money to customers like the one cited in the article than they ever would from shoplifting).
Customers have available to them, and rightfully use, systems to find the best deals for themselves. It doesn't strike me as being a problem that retailers finally have some of the same tools available to them. And they should use them as well.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
Heres the story:
get a userid and password:
Lastone i tried that worked was:
Userid: sad@day.com
Password: sadday
This reminds me of some of the discussions around here about copy protected CDs that don't play being returned as defective merchandise ad nauseum until the store agrees to let you buy something else with the store credit.
This rules out fighting CD copy protection at least in this manner.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Thankfully the UK's "Data Protection Act" will prevent this coming here :-)
info on data protection act: http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
Do we (consumers) need to start a database to somehow screw businesses now too?
This should work without any registration:
Some Shoppers Find Fewer Happy Returns
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
So who's going to create a blacklist of those companies that use this service?
To protect corporations this is a valid thing to do, to prevent people from collecting money where they shouldn't be, but just like any store policy you end up with a lot of stupid consumers caught in the net. So what if you can't return it? Make sure you don't already have it before you go and buy it. I work in a retail store and 50% of my time is spent dealing with returned items, and 99% of the time there's nothing wrong with them, it's just they "Already had it" or "Didn't feel like it any more", stupid reasons. Shop smart, and you don't have these problems.
- Saturn SL1-WNY - Propz: GNAA
The New York Times and Washington Post are giving you, FREE OF CHARGE, access to a service that costs a bunch of money to run. Now you may think that their registration policy is "evil" and "intrusive," but given the state of internet advertising, they have to make money somehow. If you don't like it, buy a copy off the newsstand.
OK, dumb question, I know where the problem is like anyone else. It's supposed to prevent the "Fry's Rental" problem, but as is demonstrated in the article, it's still a bit buggy. Evidently, this is something that needs to have a human making a decision as well.
This sig no verb.
Computers are powerful tools. Using them foolishly in the cut-throat retail business will quickly show which practices are best.
Crispin
The only problem I forsee is that we don't think about them until we have to file a report against the retailers.
This sig no verb.
I know it's illegal but just try getting a pizza delivered or a taxi if you live in the wrong area. You just get a busy signal and can't prove that you were discriminated against.
What I worry about is trying to get a job if some database flags you as a bad health risk based on what you have purchased in the past. It isn't that they worry that you won't turn up for work, they are worried that you will put the health care premiums up.
We need some serious privacy legislation with big teeth.
The question is, what is the ratio of jerks to legitimate customers?
From TFA:(emphasis added) So, maybe
So, you're going to risk annoying your legitimate customers because less than 1 percent of your customers are jerks?
I don't know; there are just so many benefits and negatives on each side of this situation. This entire setup really is just like applying for a loan. The stores are building a home-grown "credit"-reporting system, and analyzing your risk as a financial investment. Not making an exchange is akin to throwing down a 14% interest rate on a mortgage: you still have the right to accept such a rate, and the bank has a chance to retain profitability. Not accepting an exchange is certainly not the optimal way I would choose to go about such a decision, but I suppose it's the best one in the situation posed by a clothing retailer.
On the one hand, it does make for some nasty situations. The woman in the article may not realize it, but even with the $2,000 a year she spends, she may be far less profitable than a person who spends $200 on a single splurge purchase once. Ultimately, that leads to higher prices for all of us, and retailers are trying to go in an entirely opposite direction. The benefits of streamlining and smoothing out everything from supply side to process to (unfortunately) wages means that things are, on a whole, a lot less expensive than I remember even 10 years ago. Having worked in retail, I've seen some of the absolutely nightmarish return scenarios that people don't seem to think twice about: big-screens returned the day after the Superbowl or big-screens that people pretty obviously ruined while trying to save the delivery charge, people "checking out" cameras and camcorders for the length of the exchange period, etc. It comes back on the next guy in the form of higher prices, and it comes back on the employee in the form of smaller profits which equal less pay/less employees.
Of course, the system's also primed for abuse. Best Buy was mentioned in the last such article, and although they explicitly said that they didn't plan on implementing blocks or any actions against "less desirable" customers, there's nothing to stop the next guy down the street from refusing the customer who only buys the loss-leader rebated items (and nothing to stop BBY from changing this policy further down the road).
For the vast majority of us who don't play such games, it means a better deal, for the most part. As other posters have mentioned, though, such lists probably should be subject to the guidelines of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and store employees should always be given the option to override such list systems for returns.
Ultimately, though, this falls into the same category as razor-blade-business-model printers and shortened warranties on products; the free market model assumes a buyer who is educated on the product (and I suppose a buyer who isn't looking to scam the store on said product), and that is a model that is contrary to the average consumer in the real world. How different is such a list, really, from a credit report or insurance analysis? Systems such as these are a way for businesses to compete effevctively in a tighter marketplace. No company has a right to a profit, but they do have a right (within the limits of the law) to implement policies and systems that give them the best chance to earn a profit. Conversely, the consumer has a right to choose a company with a totally different system. While you can certainly argue that the profits go straight to the major shareholders and CEO (and I won't dispute it), they do also make it to the customer in the form of cheaper (in both senses of that word, unfortunately) goods.
In short, I'm not a fan of the system, but I do recognize its usefulness as well as the fact that people who do tend to abuse the system can always shop elsewhere (or straighten up).
Have you noticed that sometimes when you return items (Best Buy comes to mind here) you have to provide contact information or a driver's license or other form of identification?
Paying with cash would make it harder for the retailer, but they could still figure out that you're you.
RadioShack I think was the worst about this -- up until a short time ago they asked for your phone number among other things upon checkout. I've never returned anything to them, so I don't know what their return policy was / is.
Michael C. Hollinger
Obviously the answer here is not to be a jerk who buys tons of clothes and then returns them. Why not, ya know, TRY THE FUCKING THINGS ON before buying? Or is it more fun just to spend $2000 at Express and then see what fits and what makes you look like an idiot?
sulli
RTFJ.
People have had their homeowner's coverage dropped for making small claims and for even asking whether something was covered. This has been going on for several years. In essence, this represents a stealth conversion of policies to catastrophic coverage only. You might as well raise your deductable to $5000.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
...so this database isn't all bad. If they use it to kick out people that only buy stuff on sale. A lot of advertised specials are sold at a loss to get people into the store to buy other things with it. I would also hate it if they misclassify people then I'd be upset.
There does need to be some protection against retailers abusing this practice though.
I don't think it is fair to basically do the free rent thing, buy something for an event or a trip then return it after it is over, that is why restocking fees were put in place for certain kinds of items.
So no more returning cable modem and WAP boxes filled with rocks? Alright, back to the drawing board. Geek's gotta get himself through college...
I know nothing
Radio Shack's been doing that for at least 2 decades (I remember when my father used to take me there as a kid.) I believe that was simply for advertising, not for tracking you. And if someone says you need to show a driver's license, just say you don't drive and don't have one.
If companies in fact sell merchandise, no matter who to they have a policy regarding returns. If they fail to honour this policy eventually enough people will get together, file a class action lawsuit, and the companies doing this will suck it and wind up wasting a whole lot of money. Honestly with the margins on some of this merchandise this is ludicrous, maybe it makes sense for electronics or computer equipment but not for general purchases.
I was in costco yesterday and I saw someone returning 2 large (costco-sized) pizzas. The clerk asked if anything was wrong with them and the guy shrugged and said he bought too many. The store took them back.
If they can weed out assholes like that as customers, then I'm all for it.
After all the whining and bitching about NYT's registration policy getting modded +5, can you really blame the editors for finally giving in?
And presumably he was being somewhat sarcastic when using "evil" and "intrusive". I'd even go so far as to say that he was making fun of the anti-registration crowd, even while trying to please them.
Does the choice of this news service over the WP give you a lesser article? No. And it makes the tinfoil-wearers happy. So just... let it go, would you?
Is 'The Limited" part of the Canopy Group by chance?
We live in a free economy. If you don't like it, don't shop there. If you got screwed, camp out and make sure you let the store manager and each and every employee know that you'll spread your bad stories across the country.
My mom worked in an interior design supply store, and she'd have customers come in on Friday, outfit their living room, and then on Monday, return everything. She knew what they were doing. But the owner of the store was unwilling to put a stop to it. The store went under after a few years.
How would you like to lose your job because of this? Do you blame the store? Do you call your Senator? No. I think you do your best to deter "bad" customers.
What they need to do is, for those frequent shoppers like the woman mentioned in the newspaper article (I did read the article), so that they see that she's a valued customer.
These businesses are focused on removing the bad WITHOUT retaining their valued customers.
-- No sig for you!
If it puts a curb on people 'renting' items then I am all for it.
Shame on them. It would be the same if an online forum would start giving "karma points" to people, and change their posts' visibility according to their karma, or even allow the "nicer" ones to moderate the others!
In case you've been wronged by a retailer don't do this:
Leave an egg salad sandwich someplace that can only be traced by smell.
If they sell electronics find a dvd player that's powering a big screen tv. Make your own dvd with about 30 minutes of landscapes followed by a snuff film. Insert disk and leave. This works well for boomboxes and car audio sections too, just have 30 minutes of silence followed by an audio grab from the Spice channel.
Spread pro-union leaflets around the store.
Say the store has three widgets on the shelf and you know it's the kind of place that doesn't keep inventory in the back just move the three items, ask the sales drones you want one and make them play "hide and seek".
Wear a flashing IR LED while shopping. Invisible to the naked eye but will freak out security when they see it on their monitors. If they hassle you tell them it's for nighttime hiking and you forgot it was on.
Be creative!
...EXCEPT if he disagrees with us, or "abuses" return "privileges" (by returning more than one item - shock horror).
PS: These days, salespeople in consumer electronics retail stores tend to either be pushy (on commission) or surly and unhelpful (minimum wage). It really doesn't surprise me that a retail employee would have a grudge against customers who have the gall to interact with them and demand service. When I worked in retail, at age 16, I resented customers as well. It's a power issue. Adult salespeople have even more of a problem with this - bitterness from being stuck in a dead-end job combined with the customer/servant relationship inherent in their job equals resentment. A 30 year old Slashdot poster still working at Circuit City is probably going to be hostile to any customer requests just based on his own embarassment - people with superiority complexes who work menial jobs often carry this attitude of displaced hatred.
IAAP
Don't buy shit. Ever.
- Pay cash and don't give personal information, thus they have no info to match against and as far as they are concerned they have no record.
- If they decline the return, when the credit card company bills you, decline the charge as a problem with the merchant. Then they can either accept the return and get their merchandise back, or they can eat the charge.
It is one thing for a retailer to be having a problem with excessive returns where the customer may have used the merchandise they are returning, but to impose this on customers returning never used merchandise is untenable.The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
A friend of mine manages a Home Depot - every year - I kid you not - they get christmas trees returned in January.
I noticed a couple comments that any private company keeping track of their customers should be made to disclose they are doing so. That seems more un-American and un-capitalistic then most things.
Companies will reap what they sow, and is the responsabilities of those of us who are American consumers know how we feel about that. Personally I don't want some yokel "abusing" the system to drive my costs up because I am a "good" consumer who doesn't want to make life difficult by screaming at the top of my lungs to a store clerk to take back something I just don't want anymore.
On the other hand, I want the company to realize the value I present to them, though I may not be as vocal as someone who is always upset. This type of marketing has an upside and downside. If you don't agree with, spend you money somewhere else.
Now on the other hand, when a company becomes so large that it is a inordinate market share (e.g. McDonalds purchasing of Beef, Microsoft, etc) then they have responsabilites like the Government has. Or if there is colusion between different entities that then act like a monopoly (e.g. Oil Companies) then we need to step in and ensure a true competitive market, because we can't go spend our money somewhere else.
Let us focus on real problems instead of companies just trying to manage their customers.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
"for guys it's gadgets"
No, they won't track your purchases, but they're still going to track your returns because they get to get your name, etc. when you return it.
The problem with all of this "declining" of returns is that it's in direct violation of the UCC as it's been enacted in most states- simply put, if a purchased Item doesn't meet the intended purpose for any reason that isn't disclaimed at the time of purchase, the retailer is obligated by law to accept it back for a refund for a reasonable amount of time.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I think you have to assume that they would only flag low volume people with excessive returns, the ones they are not making money from.
However, I think your point may still hold in general that as return policies tighten customers are driven off - it could also happen from word of mouth by someone who has been denied a return. The effect of deniying returns to any one person might extend to a number of people beyond in ways they have not factored.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... this story was submitted by me last night at 11:20 PM under the name "Databases track customer return 'abuses'" and summarily rejected. So, why is it suddenly newsworthy today?
That it's not quite the way you make it out to be- AND it's also in violation of the UCC as enacted by most of the states in the Union. A retailer is obligated to allow a customer to return an item that does not meet it's intended purpose for purchase for any reason not disclaimed at the time of purchase, so long as it's done within a reasonable time period that is openly posted somewhere within the store.
The lady's experience is bogus and the retailer's in the wrong on several counts.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The real concern isn't this little system or that little system, it's the accumulated weight of information contained in all of them. Zero regulation about who collects it, how long and what it's used for.
"Well now, Mr. Anderson, I see here you returned a pair of size 38 pants this week. Two years ago you returned a pair of size 32 pants. We have a certain image to maintain at this organization and expect our employees to reflect that image, Porky- I mean Mr. Anderson."
That may sound hokey, but I bet it's closer to the mark than most people would feel comfortable admitting. It's not the routine uses that scare me, it's the routine abuses. And those are getting worse.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Why doesn't the checkout system flag each purchase as "returnable" or "unreturnable." Let the customer know on their receipt.
That would probably deter most of the people who buy stuff and then return it shortly afterward.
I buy iffy things at retail stores because of their return policies. I can buy it cheaper online, but convenience weighs in.
I used to work returns at home depot. They have been doing this for a while. Unfortuneately the black mark flags are based on returns with no record of sales. See, you have to show your drivers license to make a return, but you can pay with cash for purchases. So the computer has no idea how much you bought, just how much you returned.
Basically if a person bought $100,000 worth of stuff and returning 1%, it would bring up the same flags as if somebody bought $1,000 and returned it all.
Some of regular customers (contractors doing $10k a month in our store alone) always needed manager approval to return ANYTHING. (High shrink items or not). Needless to say the managers came as quickly as possible for these customers, but still it was a hassle for everyone involved.
We could instandly black mark (no returns at all) somebody, which was nice when we knew people were stealing. Of course, as the returns guy, I had to deal with the people before a higher-up showed up.
You're the moron. People demanded that /. stop posting site registration links so thats what michael is doing. What is the problem?
Idiot.
The ladies who need something nice to wear to a special occasion, wedding, night out, or whatever, who wear the clothing once and then return it. I'd hit them with a 50 percent restock/disposal/cleaning fee! Those sluts!
I don't think I have too much of an objection to this, I only return a couple of things a year and don't believe that I will rise to the level of "bad customer" based on that. I think most of us fall into that category.
There are many things that cost business and each and every one of those costs is passed on to their customers. With few exceptions a company exists to provide profit to it's investors, it does not exist simply to provide a service to customers. So, as a customer, I am all for a company finding ways to operate cheaper (perhaps some of those savings will be passed on to me).
I hope the database taps in to criminal records, so that it declines returns to people who have been convicted of shoplifting, fraud, bad checks and that sort of thing. Those are the people most likely to be committing some sort of return fraud.
Now, having said all of these things about why I think this is a good idea, I'll tell you what I think concerns me.
I think people have a right to know that their return information is going to be entered into a database that may be used against them. This should be done at the time of purchase so people will have that moment to make a buy/don't buy decision. They should be reminded of this before the return is processed. They should also be informed before they make any other decision that the business may enter into the database.
People should have the right to respond to the information contained in the database and allowed to provide their own explaination.
Gift returns should probably be handled a little differently (they should still count though).
The "statute of limitations" for non-criminal information in the database should not be excessive (perhaps a year). The fact that you returned a few too many things should not haunt you forever.
Proof of identification should be required for any action that makes it into the database. That way John Smith #1 and John Smith #2 won't be confused. This proof should not be tied to a person's social security number. Soundex information should not be used. The guiding principal should be that if the information is not absolute it should not be held against an individual.
The database should not be the sole deciding factor. If the database declines a return, a manager should make the actual decision after listening to the customer.
The information in the database should remain independant of credit information and should be considered somewhat private and not used for other purposes.
Stores who participate in this system should post notices on their door (just like they do for Visa and other credit cards).
Things like faulty or spoiled products should never be held against a customer. Obviously these kinds of returns should never be entered in the database.
Customers should be able to know what their "score" is and what their information contains. This should be provided for free and should be automatic in the event of a decline.
Costco has an insane return policy. They let you return pretty much any purchase from their stores as long as you have the reciept. Once I returned a computer I had for 2 years and they gave me my $2500 back in CASH! Shortly after that, they ammended their return policy on computer hardware to six months (which is still pretty wild). I know people that will buy other big ticket items like big screen TVs and such and return them a few years later and buy a newer, better, cheaper one from there and restart the process all the while getting a little more money back each time. It's pretty crazy if you ask me, but thats what they (Costco)claim makes them better than Sam's Club or any other store for that matter.
Can you even be legally denied the option to return a product, if you follow the manufacturer's rules ( ie, orignal box, not trashed, under 'x days', etc. )?
I realize this is a 'private' business ( the store ) and can refuse business, but they are 'open to the public', so they cant just make things up as they go along...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The thing is, in this case, there was nothing wrong with the merchandise. The shopper just realized that she already had something like it at home. People should be more thoughtful about what they spend their money on. If you buy clothes and frequently return them, it might seem to the store that you are just wearing them and then returning them.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I think a more ethical way to handle this is for the software to determine the return policy at the time of purchase, and then the customer has the opportunity to refuse to make the purchase under a no-returns condition. So the woman from the example in the article would have been prsented with the no-returns-from-you-anymore condition at the time of purchase, and she could have said "no thanks, good bye."
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
There are abusive customers who cost a company more money than it is worth. They exist in every industry. At some point, the biggest abusers may find themselves "excommunicated" from the services of a particular company.
I knew some people who worked on a tech support team for a piece of business software. A particular customer called in to support habitually, asked questions about simple things he could have easily found in the manual, wasted the time of the techs repeatedly, and was ultimately abusive towards them.
It came to the point where the supervisor of the team made the decision to inform the customer that they would no longer be supporting him, gave permission to the team to hang up on him, and even suggested he go with a competitor's software package in the future.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I'm no expert on the UCC, but the concept you are talking about is commonly called the warranty of merchantability - i.e., if you sell something that claims to be an Xwidget - it will do the things Xwidgets do.
The example in the article was of a woman who bought a shirt, took it home, discovered she had a similar shirt already, and decided to return it. In this example, there was apparently nothing about the shirt that caused it to fail to perform as a shirt normally would (e.g. ripped seams). In other words, the item did fulfill it's intended purpose - don't cloud the item's inherent purpose with the customer's subjective purposes (e.g., having no duplicate shirts). In other words, "Buyer's Remorse" does not call into question whether the purchased item performs as the item was intended to perform.
Don't take this to mean I approve of stores doing this - I don't. I'm just a bit apprehensive about relying on the UCC to legislate against a long standing common law doctrine. By the same token, it isn't so interesting to me that I'd want to research it. Got a citation?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Use Firefox + BugMeNot to get to the WashingtonPost article.
Oh, and grow up.
I start screaming while I throw shit at the cashier and manager who can't do anything but listen to a fucking computer.
God.
When are people going to learn that policies and rules are not meant to be zero tolerant? The increasing computerization of our society means everyone of us is being pigeonholed into a specific, discrete category with no ability to escape that categorization. Instead, we're forced to "bear" these types of bullshit.
And we, as a society, complain when we aren't allowed to have responsibility or power. Yes, they go hand in hand. We don't trust our teachers to make decisions regarding the promotion or demotion of a student, so we provide them with a hard rule that can't be bent. We don't trust our managers of our stores to ensure they're profitable so we make all the decisions for them, despite the fact that the local situation is better comprehended by a local manager who is competent.
And in all of these situations where we don't allow decisions to be made we place individuals who are braindead and incapable of making those decisions when the systems break. What happens post Christmas when the return system breaks? Do you send everyone away, afraid that you might be letting someone get away with a $30 theft? To protect your $30.00 you're denying hundreds of legitimate customers their money?
FUCK THAT.
You can cart me out screaming and hollering and sue me for abuse. I'm getting tired of the system, and I intend to start fighting back. This is all bullshit. I'm no stranger to being tossed out from stores, or from screaming at the top of my lungs about what a dipshit someone is, so this is just another fucking cherry on the top of the sundae.
My reality check bounced.
Customers avoid intrusive practices; although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
That's morally no different than someone buying an outfit, wearing it and returning it for credit (or not, in this case). You have no problem with leeching their content for free. As registrations go, the Post's is pretty benign.
What kind of data mining are they going to do? Someone as paranoid^h^h^h^h^hcautious are you could surely be clever enough to make something up? But even that's halfway sleazy (vs your total sleaziness).
The Post isn't a charity, sweetheart. Neither is any other online newspaper. If you don't like the fact that there's some minimal price to be paid either remain (more) ignorant or get off your ass and pay the $1.50 for the Sunday paper.
Here in Massachusetts, if you have a posted return policy, you have to live by it. Just because some computer decides it doesn't want to take the return doesn't mean you don't have to take it. If your policy says you would take it back, you have to, or the store is liable for fines. (Fines can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.) If you have no posted return policy, you can be made to take back almost anything. (And, posted means it has to be where customers can see it before they make a purchase. Printing it on the back of the receipt doesn't count.)
Also, if the item is defective, the law requires that the return be accepted regardless of the return policy, and the purchaser has the right to have their choice of a full refund in the form used to pay for the item (they can't say you can only have store credit unless that's how you paid), exchange for same, or the item repaired. There are additional consumer rights as well. Google the Massachusetts Attorney General's office for more information, or contact your own state's AG's office to inquire about your own consumer rights.
Knowing how few things I've had to return in my life (3 or 4 per decade perhaps), I do think that anyone who returns things regularly is probably just being a jerk to the store... so, I don't have a problem with the idea of stores turning some such people away as problem customers, but I think they should actually accept that last return (as long as either their return policy or the law says they should) and then tell the customer "Please don't come back."
If it's a $0.59 piece of gum, it's kind of silly. But if you're buying a $2,000 plasma TV (saw one at Wal-Mart yesterday), it might be worth your effort to collect this documentation before you part with your money.
Read and understand any contract before you enter into it. Again, this will probably be the returns policy and warranty. If you don't like the contract, don't enter into it. It is generally not a good idea to modify the contract in these instances. It may be technically legal, but you probably don't want to go to court over it. If the policy is unacceptable to you, shop somewhere else.
Pay with Visa. Other credit cards may offer similar purchase protection; this is not a Visa ad. It happens that I use Visa, and have had to use this process a couple of times in the past fifteen years. It has worked for me every time.
If the vendor refuses to honor the terms of the sale (e.g. won't take a return that the policy says he should), document what happened.
Do not get angry or belligerent. Do not try to "make them pay", "get even", or make the vendor lose face. Just make a sincere attempt act under the terms of the contract.
Document what you did. Document what the merchant did. Do this immediately, while it's fresh in your mind.
Tell the truth. Lying to get something for nothing is fraud, and you're deliberately creating a paper trail here. If you're wrong, deal with it. Don't try to scam the system.
Contest the charge with Visa. You will need to provide documentation showing:
The terms of the sale (the documented contract, consisting of copies of all policies, receipts, whatever you agreed to). That's the stuff that's written down at the time of the sale! "I remember the salesman told me I could bring it back" is not documentation.
Specifically how the merchant did not comply with the terms of the sale.
The fact that you made a good faith attempt to resolve the issue with the merchant.
Your statement that the following charges (here you specify the items on your Visa bill) are erroneous, fraudulent, not owed, or whatever the case might be.
If it's a return that was refused, you may also indicate that you will retain the item for a reasonable time period during which the vendor may arrange to pick it up. After that, you will dispose of it as you see fit. This is not necessary, but will help support your case that you're not trying to scam the merchant.
Do this within the time limit specified by Visa for contesting of charges. Typically 60 days from close of statement on which the purchase was made.
Works for me. Haven't had to do it too many times, but every time, Visa has refunded the charges.
Most recently, with the Sprint store.
If you're going to try to scam the vendor, you're not going to have any luck for very long. You will lose credibility with Visa (or whoever you use) if you contest charges every week. That's because you're trying to cheat the vendor.
If it sounds too good to be true, it is. Don't even bother to read the contract if you think you're going to get something for nothing. You're not. Just leave. Or your own greed will get you.
And just because it seems to piss off some people around here, I'll repeat the same wisdom my father told me:
You can't cheat an honest man.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I usually do pay with cash, but I have noticed in computer stores particularly, you get treated even worse for being an unknown quantity. I was trying to buy an LCD monitor with cash and the Mc-Computer store personnel treated me with suspicion all the way. They demanded personal information before they retrieved a box from the back of the store, and flatly insisted I buy an extended warranty before they would sell it to me. They wouldn't take no for an answer (probably illegal on their part) and I finally left.
I used to spend lots of money at that store, but now I go to Mc-Computer store # 2 down the street - that first store no longer gets any of my thousands of dollars of business. And, oh yeah - that LCD screen? Store # 2 had it ON A SHELF, actually accessible to their customers instead of hidden in the back, and on sale for $50 less. I grabbed a box, carried it to the cashier, paid with cash, and left. Sweet justice.
Since all these garments most likely have rfid sewn into each stitch, the retailers will know when you are nearing their store and simply pull that big metal grate down before you walk in.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
A signature need not take the form of one's name though. Any mark made with the intention of agreeing to or validating a document can be considered a signature. When the person wrote the words "Check ID" on their card they are making a mark with the intention of agreeing to the terms of the card.
Here is some further reading dealing with digital signatures but touches upon what defines a signature. American Bar Association and The Journal of Information Law and Technology.
Is it worth it to try and argue what a signature is with the 800 lb gorilla that the the Credit Card company is though? Probably not... It's probably easier just to get one of those CitiBank cards with your photo on it.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Buying stuff should be anonymous. They don't need to know personal information cause it's your right to privacy.
Returning stuff, they do have a right to some basic information. Imagine someone buying clothes, wearing it with the tags for one day, perhaps for a dance, then returning it the next day?
As for electronics, I don't know about that area.
And a side note, I hate it when forms ask me for a phone number, in a required way. I do NOT have my own phone line. And no, I don't like putting down someone else's phone number that I have access to.
So people who want to bargain with a place that is mostly empty are not worth the trouble? I'll tell you what the trouble is, people/owners of hotel franchises, that are substandard in their cleanliness, repair and general upkeep of those places asking PREMIUM prices for what are basically one night "flop houses". I never damage anything, steal etc., yet I am forced to subsidize those who do. Since when is a hotel, even with uber high speed internet connections, ever worth more than the local hostel down the street? I have lived the world over, and I can assure you that a place to sleep overnight shower, and shit, really ain't worth that much. Unless you have a pregnant virgin and an ass.
Those folks hanging out at B&N all day should try the library instead. More people are going to the library now because books are so hideously overpriced.
If you're only going to read a book once (pretty likely), why pay $20-$35 for it just to have it sitting on your shelf? It only cost the publisher $2 to make, and they have to absorb the costs of all the books that go unsold because they COST TOO DAMN MUCH.
Get your tax money's worth-- use the library and screw B&N. They're the Starbucks of booksellers anyway, pushing the little guy under.
People are getting charged higher insurance AUTO, HOUSE whatever just for having a low credit score. So forget that discount you may be getting when you turn 25 they can just turn around and say you have a low score and it makes you a risk.
The kicker is that they say they dont know what specific information on the reports causes their score to go up or down it's just a number they are presented with. Which they then say you are entiteled to a free credit report.. hey stuff may be there but what specific item makes me a bad driver?
I've never been in a wreck.. so I find it unfair.
Remember when Radio Shack always demanded your name?
Remember when yo usaid I don't want to give it to you they said they had to have it?
Remember when you almost choked the guy behind the counter?
They quit asking for some reason.
Just keep saying no, stand on your rights and eventually they will give up. Including saying NO when asked for your socialism serial number (you know, that number the government gives all it's inventory, even it's human resources and also any cows it happens to own).
Michael wrote:
although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
The Washington Post's registration isn't "intrusive." It's a totally voluntary process in which you trade information for access to their content. Don't want to give them the information? That's fine -- you just won't get to see all of the content. Just like what happens on Slashdot when you choose not to give them money for a subscription.
...although...I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
What's up Michael? Did they refuse to kick-back some ad revenue to ya or something?
The significant thing here is that it sounds like the store's system was poorly done. It sounds like it looked at the number of returns per customer, rather than the percentage. This customer wasn't returning a higher percentage than other customers, but she shopped there frequently. So, she was buying and keeping a lot more items than a "normal" customer, too.
We all buy way more stuff than we really need, and it just ends up cluttering your house.
Get it for free instead! Don't throw out your unused junk, give it to someone who can use it! Join FreeCycle!
as if all the fucking dirtbag freeloaders hanging out and treating the store like it was their personal lounge wasn't bad enough
Whilst I've never seen a B&N store personally, if they're anything like Borders and Waterstones in the UK, they'll have attempted to create a fake-bohemian atmosphere, where people can lounge around, read books, and buy coffee.
Now, chain bookstores are out to make money (particularly Borders, who have a reputation as being a bad employer). Thus, they create this atmosphere to (they hope) make them more money.
If they were more open about "buy stuff or get out", they would probably put the customers off, who then might not spend as long browsing, and would ultimately spend less (if only on coffee).
So, my point is... if the bookshops encourage this (fake) atmosphere in order to make money, you really can't complain when people start to buy into it.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration."
You, Sir, are a twit.
The whole story is a non-issue. When the consumers try to game the system, they diserve to get gamed back. I guess you believe that the handling and paperwork caused by these inconsiderate shoppers should be eaten by the seller. You probably also bitch that the seller has the audacity to add a markup to their cost of goods sold and actually profit.
At the risk of sounding repetitive: You are a Twit!
It's called the Better Business Bureau.
I hate to state this but it depends on where your credit card is issued and who the issuer is. I work for a major credit card company, and basically there is still a lot of "Buyer Beware" out there. If a store makes plain clear and simple what their return policy is and they deny a return because of it being out of policy then as long as there is documentation that can be provided that proves the customer was aware of this then a credit card company may well back them up and not issue you a credit. But often stores do not make clear their return policy and then rely on a small sign in the store as their defence.
Before working for this major credit card company, I worked for two main retail chains in the UK. PC World just had a statement that they accept returns within your statutory rights (i.e. they stick to the letter of UK law which btw is much more liberal than US sales law anywhere). I only worked there a few months because my wife dragged me Stateside. But UK credit cards tend to back you up more than US ones in the case of store returns. Before that I worked in Burtons - the menswear store. They had a great big sign at the cash register which clearly stated in big print what the return policy is (simply said: unhappy with your purchase for any reason, then please return your unworn merchandise within 30 days for full refund). They also had it printed on the back of the till receipt. This way, since anyone who made a purchase was given a receipt, hey presto they had a copy of the stores' return policy.
If The Limited print on the back of their receipts what the policy is and have it in big bold type at the register then customers do not have a leg to stand on when making a return because that would be the sales contract that they entered into. I don't know what their policy is because I don't shop there. I hate to say this I'm more of a Wal Mart shopper.
Mark.
Stores must take merchandise back within 3 business days if the customer believes it is flawed, and return payment. Perhaps she returned it in perfect condition, but the store won't give the money back because it feels she is taking advantage of them. If she returned the clothing with a complaint such as "hey, I payed $80 for this brand name clothing, and it isn't double stiched" or something to that degree, then she'd have an arguement.
As for the "perfect" solution, I'v got an idea; Don't buy from retail chains that abuse you, and if you know they abuse other people, don't buy from them either. Perhaps the second best point I could make, would be consume less you consumerist pig!. We all have needs and wants, and in our society, those wants have gotten out of control due the mind control of advertising and schools. Yes, it takes some time for people to wise up to this, but if public schools hadn't coupled making us childish with making us smart, then mabye the advertising would've kicked in as hard and screwed with our grey mass as kids. I know I'm still dealing with that mindfuck, and I also know that if I ever find someone who's in marketing, I'm going to walk away from them without saying a word.
"Hi, I'm grace, I work in the marketing department"
*Ty walks away, without saying a word.*
If anyone asks, it's because when I find people who do marketing I feel the almost insupressable urge to disembowel them with anything that's handy. They have been a part of destroying my life and identity to turn a profit. It's one thing if they ask "well, how's marketing bad?", it's different when they try to lie and be friends.
With that said though, learn not to be tracked, and consuming less is as simple as using less for awhile and paying off all of your debt, then living within your means properly while keeping a saving account going for a rainy day or emergency. Learn not to be wasteful, that's the key.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
You don't have to take my word for it.
Force stores with this policy to inform consumers _at time of purchase_ that said purchase is a non-returnable final sale, defective merchandise excepted.
For those paying with cash, modify to: we'll take this item back, but no more returns for items purchased from this point forth.
While the current policy offends me, I do not have a problem with this modified policy. Buyer beware, but informed.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I don't think Slashdot editors are in any position to cast stones on the Wash. Post's registration requirement, seeing as how slashdot won't let you see articles when they are posted *unless* you register AND pay.
Seriously, the biggest example of "buy/try/use/return" is Frys Electronics. Most people I talked to who are customers or even employees have noted that people can just buy it, try it out, and return it if they don't like it.
That is a pretty big drain on the store's resources:
Stores like Frys and Best Buys have started other measures a while back which basically states that if you return the device and it is in working order, you are assessed a restocking fee. (10%-15%).
To track users who habitually return items or who are in the selling off of return slips business who:
Seems like a good thing for the business to protect itself form opportunistic shoppers who are out to abuse the system.
For people who aren't abusing the system, this sucks.
This kind of policy has negative consequences:
I'm guessing that the companies have already been tracking shoppers' habits and return habits, thanks to the very commonplace use of credit cards, debit cards, and members cards. They have probably looked at the numbers and find the following:
Granted, most companies and corporations don't do what's the most common-sense, but for the most part, companies do what they feel is needed to survive.
Writing enmasse(letters and emails) to the companies and asking to know why this has been enacted and getting public awareness up about this will probably be beneficial to both the company and the consumer:
Winged Power Photography
Such a system if implemented widely so such databases are shared amongst all retailers could lead to creating a class of citizens that are denied purchase priveleges almost everywhere. This would lead to special stores for banned customers. Kind of like those check cashing stores that prey on people that for various reasons make use of their services and very high interest rates.
Of course such a system should only affect a very small minority of customers. But if the retailers find it profitable to force people into to the stores chargin above average rates then the system will be used to do just that. Eventually only a minority of people will be able to purchase items at the good customer price. Or the system will be used to provide adaptive pricing depending on the customers rating. Seems that I read something like this for certain web sites. Go to check the price on a product and depending on your particular user ID rating you might get a price higher or lower than the next person. Kind of the ultimate "all the market will bear" principle.
And for those that have commented that people should boycott the stores using such systems, it won't work. Never has never will. There are so many customers out there today that companies can and do chose to alienate entire groups since they can make up the difference from other groups. A number of years ago there was an article in Forbes (I believe) that stated many companies had figured out it was more costly to provide good customer service than to provide poor or bad customer service. The costs of keeping a few customers happy was not worth the time and effort required. Better to lose them as customers and move on to the next one that to make things right. And customer service orginizations have been doing similar things for awhile now. Credit card customers get sorted when they enter their credit card numbers on the phone. If you are considered a good customer they route you ahead of other callers to a real person. Those that are less desirable get put on hold for extended wait times. This has been done for a number of years.
Think about what the credit score business has done to some people. A few years ago when they started providing easier access to peoples credit scores a lot of people found they were locked out of low interest loans. They even use the credit scores in back ground checks now. Soon such a global CRM system will stratify the people of the world even more than they are now.
Nope! That's *not* discrimination. You can discriminate all you want -- for example, only boys are allowed in Boy Scouts, which is completely legal even though it discriminates against the girls. In fact, the Boy Scouts went through a whole gay discrimination thing with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the Scouts can discriminate against gay men being leaders.
There is a very short list of prohibited discriminations, and then only in certain situations (getting a loan for a house, getting Social Security, etc). But outside of those very narrow restrictions, you can discriminate whomever you darn well please.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
There's a valid question of what constitutes excessive. That's done on a case by case basis. When we do draw the line, we accept that one last return and then say, "OK buddy, we're cutting you off."
The one time I don't preview my post, I leave a bold tag open. sigh
okay now _thats_ some funny shit!!! who the hell modded that down?!
I have this reoccuring nightmare that I will be denied future Medicare (the USA system for providing medical care for old people) benefits when the system goes backrupt in ten years.
The excuse that they will use is that I ate to much red meat or candy bars in my middle-aged years. The source of this denial of benefits was the data collected on all the grocery store purchases made from the early 2000's on.
I try to obtain the grocery store cards without giving any name and address in order to inhibit the grocery corporations from tracking and databasing my diet. Safeway (as always) was the absolute worst. I had to go through three levels of management before they would issue me a Safeway Club card without my giving them any personal information. Why are grocery stores tracking my purchases anyway?
Am I paranoid? Sure!
Am I crazy? I don't think so.
After all, if I told you thirty years that in the future you would have to pee in a bottle in order to determine whether you smoked (anything) within the past month in order to get any job, you would have said that I was crazy and paranoid. But now you too piss in the fucking bottle to get any job.
The bottom line...don't trust any corporation or believe their propaganda. It's best to assume a 'prisoner's dilemma' best-defence strategy for dealing with any corporation. Start with a positive move and then do exactly back to them whatever they do to you, positive or negative.
I can understand returning something that was given to you as a gift or if the item is defective or somesuch, but when you become a "serial" buyer/returner of non-defective goods, I don't blame the stores for telling the person to take a hike. It increases the store's cost of doing business, it wastes the time of other customers who have to sit there and wait while the return is being processed, and I find it to be just an obnoxious/rude practice.
How many times have you been queued up at the checkout only to find yourself behind one of these clowns who obviously knows how to work the system. It's damn annoying.
If Best Buy complains that people buy only loss leading items, how bout this for an idea? Don't sell them unconditionally at that price! The local pizza joint will sell you 2 small all dressed, a fry and a coke for less than if you bought them individually, so why won't Best Buy give you something like 15$ of a pack of DVD-R if you buy the burner instead of selling the DVD-R's so cheap?
That, and we're consuming far too much. Nobody can resist a sale anymore, we all think we "need" the crap we buy and we honestly believe we're "saving" money by purchasing things on sale. Stores take advantage through advertising to you how bad you need to buy something as well as presenting their product in very favorable ways.
Thats fine, its business, but they push it to the point of having mirrors that make you look thinner in that dress.
So I can't really say I sympathize with the person who impulse buys stuff and realizes they don't need or want it, but I can't sympathize with a retailer who will sink to any depth to get you to buy it either.
Besides, no retailer can in good faith refuse a first time customer based on the return rejection system they have, so everybody has a chance to learn before they screw up and keep buying solar powered flashlights and black hiliters.
That, and if a product is returned just because its not wanted - big screen for the superbowl or clothes, charge a restocking fee! Radio Shack here in canada does. I think its printed on the bill, and i have no problem only getting 90% of my money back from radio shack if I'm going to put the store through the trouble of fucking around with receipts, new package, price tag, etc.
(Especially when i buy a little odd or end that works and return the broken one in the same package.)
Anyone who gets denied a refund based on that system probably deserves to be denied...if not the time they got denied, then from another time that would set the system off in the first place.
Sure, I don't like having my information gathered, i generally deny to give a supermarket my postal code, even though its just to keep track of flyers, and i usually give the name George Bush and my address as being 1600 Pennsylvaia avenue when they do ask.
I think we're all in agreement that we should vote with our wallets.
They will still record your information when you try to return it, and then your entered into some system, which might not include info on all that you buy - which probably makes it even worse.
If you dont give them information they wont let you return it. The best thing to do is buy stuff from a variety of places that arent high tech:
Flea Markets
Auction Sales
Yard Sales
Low tech stores in market districts
Better prices anyways.
They should block customers who try to abuse the system. They ruin it for the rest of the honest, decent customers.
/. relating to retail, so that I can watch all the uberconsumers cry and moan about this and that. All I want to know is how many of these whiners have actually worked in retail and can understand what it's like. You see the dark side of the human race when you work in retail. I don't know how many adult customers I've seen break down and whine and throw fits about this and that, coming in and yelling at us and treating us like dirt. It's amusing. The trouble customers make my day, because I can sit back and laugh at how ridiculously unreasonable they are.
I love when an article comes out on
As another poster has pointed out, the store does not "make" 1500 on her. Retail clothing margins are pretty good, or very,very good if it's a designer label. But, like any retailer, there are a lot of costs involved, staff, utilities, rent, etc. But worse than, say, an electronics or furniture store, the inventory is metaphorically perishable - it's fashion - to the non-/. world, clothes aren't worth much in inventory after one season (about 4 months if you're lucky).
You are right, returns are to be expected. Unlike another poster, they are not required by law. AFAIK, the laws generally say that you must sell and provide functional merchandise that will last a reasonable amount of time. Buying and then trying to return an item because (very loose paraphrase of article) "I was stupid and bought a coat that that looks just like the one I already have at home" is not a good reason for a return. Now, no retailer will completely refuse returns, any retailer like that won't be one for long if the policies are too tight, however, there are limits.
For that matter, there are many business where you have to be picky about customers. In technology, you can have consulting clients that nitpick for hours over minor details, software users who refuse to read manuals or upgrade from unsupported operating systems, etc.
At the end of the day, a few customers will fall through the cracks in any policy. It happens. Really, if she was that "good" of a customer, the staff would probably recognize her as such, and have overridden any flag on her account - since they didn't, I suspect we're only getting the shoppers side of the story.
So do you also snicker when you hear names like Peter, Neil, or Bob?
From the article:
... I was simply aggregating it," he said. "The site was mischaracterized as a blacklist."
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, Texas, 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.
"It was public information.
A "Fake" site similar to the above could be set up to draw unscrupulous businesses.
A database of those businesses could be created and posted on another website so people would know not to do business with them.
Turn the tables on these people -- black-list them .
The problem is really not bad customers, it's republicans.
These are the people that barge to the head of the line like they are better than others.
These are the people returning things that they damaged and lying about it
These are the people that when exit polled were nasty and told the person polling that "they didn't have to talk to them"
Republicans are in the end just NASTY people, and it's Europeans that cannot fathom the nasty, rude behavior of republicans. They have never seen the depths of lying and crookedness that republicans will seep to in an attempt to cheat the system or someone.
Good luck. it's all just going to get worse before it gets better.
Reality is all that stuff that doesn't care if you believe in it or not.--Solomon Short
Whenever two companies do business with each other, it is a common practice for them to sign confidentiality agreements. By contrast, customers of any company or retailer just assume that their business with that company is confidential. More and more businesses of all kinds are abusing this trust.
One rule of business to live by: TRUST NO ONE.
It is clear that the time has come for consumers to start issuing confidentiality agreements of their own. Therefore, what we as consumers should do is start insisting on confidentiality agreements with all companies that we do business with.
My plan to do this: Hire a lawyer to have a boilerplate confidentiality agreement drafted. Don't be afraid to make the terms of the agreement restrictive; companies do that all the time so why shouldn't you? Don't overdo it; you want them to sign the agreement.
When that form agreement is drawn up, send two copies by registered post to all that we do business with. Send with the agreement a covering letter that states the following:
* Both copies of this agreement must be signed by a representative of that company who is authorised to sign such agreements.
* If the agreement is not signed and retured within 14 days, we terminate our business with that company within 30 days.
* The agreement must be signed as is. It is a standard agreement that you use for all companies, and you are unwilling or unable to pay your lawyer extra to look at customised agreements.
What do you put in the agreement? This is a question to ask your lawyer, but I would seek to place as many restrictions on disclosure as possible. Don't exclude reasonable disclosure to bodies like credit reporting agencies and law enforcement with a warrant. Most other restrictions are fair game, especially those disclosures to other businesses that they don't tell you about. After all, if they tell a third party about your business dealings, but they don't want you to know that they have discussed your business with someone else, there's something going on. It is these kinds of shady dealings that the agreement must be designed to prevent. You can also include clauses that ban your details being used for direct mail solicitations and the like.
Put in the agreement a schedule of prescribed penalties for breaching the agreement. $5000 per breach or $25000 per breach that is taken to court are reasonable charges. The $5000 figure is about the maximum figure that is large enough to be a deterrent but small enough to be not worth the trouble for the company to fight in court. You may be able to get the company to pay reasonable enforcement costs as well (legal fees and the like).
I am not a lawyer, and the above isn't legal advice. If you want legal advice, or an agreement drafted, hire a lawyer.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
end of the day people just have to be smarter consumers, stores are not required by law to provide refunds under most circumstances, (well not in aust) and its the big names, target, kmart etc who have created the idea that it is a right of the consumer to expect to have their goods fully refunded. Coming from some retail experience in mobile phones it is unreasonable to refund an item if someone isnt happy with it as we are left with a 2nd hand item, and who wants to buy a 2nd have phone? We will not even exchange it for another model unless the customer can prove they were wrongly informed by a salesperson. End of the day, be a little smarter about your buying decisions, do a little research before you buy and everyone will be happy.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > 506
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.-- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
Release date: 2004-08-06
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
zosxavius photography
If they're hot chicks and they're in marketing, I'll still f*ck them anyway.
However, being a computer geek, this falls mainly into the realm of "science fiction", not anything likely to happen.
I for one welcome our new retail overlords! Because that's where this is going. Maybe your job in retail sucked due to some customers abusing the system. Maybe it's tough on stores. So? Maybe you should find a job where you actually like and respect your customers. That is not justification for blanket policies that turn around and treat ALL customers like crap.
Life Insurance in Canada
. . .like Rob Carlson's, gaming the "saver cards" right back.
Me, I have 5-6 cards from each store. . .registered to one of our cats, our dog, or one of our ferrets.
All at an old address, which no longer exists. And we choose a card at random.
Unlike the average user and spam, it's EASY to game the cards. . . .
...but Radio Shack policy was to take it back, no questions asked.
There was questions asked... Name, address, phone number...
Wait, that was for the sale...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The company i work for recently banned a customer from getting a refund on anything. The directive came from head office.
However, this customer was refunding everything he was purchasing, and would usally purchase a particular item once a week before returning it within a few days.
however, I am aware lots of retailers are REQUIRING ID such as a drivers license.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Her friends will have heard all before. Many times before. Probably to the point where they will be more than willing to cheer on the clerk who gave her a long overdue kick in the butt.
I don't normally say this, but...GIVE THIS MAN 2 MORE POINTS! Everyone's going "The customer's always right" (a marketing gimmick, and not codified in the laws, even the lemon ones).
A few more posters like the above, and we just may get the old Slashdot back.
one concise citation your bank may be willing to dispute a lesser sum, but they don't have to
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
i don't believe her story. What kind of woman doesn't know she ALREADY has those clothes?? My sisters can't leave a clothing store without trying something on and shopping for MORE clothes for hours on end. That's like saying Santa doesn't know which reindeers he has!! My sisters buy LOTS of clothes and barely return anything, only a few clothes that don't fit exactly, BUT THEY NEVER RETURN A BOATLOAD BACK. Probably she buys them for a while to find out what the competition has to copy the outfit patterns and styles before returning them or else she actually is "RENTING" the outfits for an occasion. If it's a case of competition spying, the store has more to fear than a scam buyer.
I'm all for ANY system that routs out the scammers, whether they be sellers or buyers.
* weedshare.com 50% to artists, webjay.org iuma.com CDBaby.com Epitonic.com ampcast.com
Return too much, and watch the catalogs go away.
"I don't care if management encourages these practices; if you can't treat people properly without losing your job, then you need to find another job."
I recommend Burger King. Everything YOUR WAY!
I had a friend buy several computer parts from Newegg. He returned his graphics card about 3 different times - once because it didn't work, another because it didn't work well enough, and I forget the other reason. He still ended up with a graphics card from Newegg, it was just that it took him three tries to get one that worked, and that he liked. I don't see a problem with this.
Just the same, I believe that retailers have every right to limit their dealings with abusive customers. I knew one guy who purchased a leather couch (probably over $1500), and got a young cat shortly thereafter. The cat took to sharpening its claws on the back corner, so after he discovered this, he got rid of the cat, and returned the couch, telling them that the damage there when he received it.
After seeing this and other similar incidents, I firmly believe that most true-blooded Americans will avoid taking responsibility when they can get away with it, and try to get whatever they can without paying for it (not just monetarily, either). There's no reason retailers should have to fund this nonsense.
Why is this /. article titled 'Retailers Deploy Databases Against Customers'? The use of the word 'Against' clearly portrays bias 'against' businesses trying to protect themselves from customers who have (if the logic behind their app and the data are correct) abused the return policies of those businesses. For a moment I thought I was reading the New York Times or watching CBS...
from about 6 months ago... I'd search for it but slashdot searches suck.
Customer not always right
An option that seemed a little less evil was to to use Albertson's, which has the cards, but has never required anyone to fill in the information. The only thing tha still bothers me about this is that it's easy to aggregate all the purchases under that one ID, even if you don't know who they belong to. Also, I don't make the mistake of paying with a credit card - it's cash all the way.
Honestly, it probably takes a LOT for a company to refuse further business from a customer.
I worked retail for a while. We had recidivist returns abusers. Some people would even come in repeatedly and switch tags on things, but we were powerless to stop them because they might give the company a bad name.
Good for the retailers, I say. "The customer is always right" worked until the screaming assholes got the upper hand.
vk.
Radio Shack asks... even Toys 'R' Us recently asked me for my phone number (I don't spend much time there, so I don't know if this is a chain-wide practice of theirs).
If you're prepared (and not surprised into thinking there's no other option than to comply...), this is *very* easy to avoid.
I just smile and say, "Oh, I don't give out my phone number. Thanks!" They finish ringing me up, and I leave. I've never even gotten a "why not?", or assurance that it won't be called -- but if I did, I'd just say "I understand, I just never give out my phone number". And smile again, and look at the cash register. You don't need to provide an explanation.
It's not a big deal, but it's like a lot of other things; you have to know what to say, or you'll be caught off-guard and the simplest response will be to provide the information (which is what they're depending on).
It's like dealing with sales spiels on the phone (my credit cards sometimes try to sell me on something after a support call); I *do* feel rude just hanging up, but waiting to the end leaves me with a sense of owing them something... which of course is how they work. So I interrupt with "sorry, I don't want to waste your time; I never buy things over the phone. Thanks, and have a nice day!" Then I can hang up without feeling like I've just made someone shitty day a little shittier. You can also interrupt and say "I don't want to be rude, but I have to run".
One of my friends works at Express. Another at KB Toys. Both companies are doing this anti-fraud stuff, so I asked them to explain it to me.
Basically, if you are a normal customer, and you only make legitimate returns, you are fine. If you try to fraud them... well they know it.
For example, one guy returned 10 Gamecube games to KB toys one day. Said he got them for his son, but his son has an Xbox. He didn't have a reciept... didn't feel like exchanging that day. So he got store credit. Like 350 in store credit on a giftcard. 2 days later he came back and did the same thing when a different manager was on duty.
Turns out that week Circut City was selling GameCube games for 5 and 10 bucks. He spent 50-100 bucks and can now get 350 in toys. That's 250-300 dollars in "profit" for him... times two. The toy store loses out. He gains from fraud.
Now, a guy who returns 1 or 2 games because he got them for the wrong console won't have issues. It's an honest mistake... but the frauder is now blacklisted and won't be able to screw the company over.
At Express, this may help stop those who "rent" clothing for free... but the woman who screws up and buys the wrong size accidentally one day won't have any problems.
As far as checking credit cards and ID... it is a pain. I want to be able to use my card quickly. ID checking and signature checking slows down consumers. I prefer the machines where you sign yourself. It's faster, its easier.
And if you think needing to show ID to return something is a hassle... just try writing a check to a store. They want TWO IDs... and a phone #, and an address, and your DL # is recorded. They make a scan of your check too. If it is returned... 25 dollar fee too..
I have no problem with the way you would run your business, under one condition: you be honest. If you hide from me the fact that you think I'm too poor to shop at your store, I'll not only be insulted, but I'll vote with my feet and do you the favour of never setting foot in your store again. Benefit of the doubt, and all...
Anyway, it is the crap attitudes of brick and mortar businesses as a whole that is driving me to shop online. I can shop in my underwear and say what I -really- think about a certain price. Then again, I'm not generally one to abuse a given business.
I do agree that certain "customers" should be fired in certain cases.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Here's the letter I wrote to Gap [PDF] regarding how they're currently engaged in destroying my reputation. I addressed it to Paul Pressler, the President and CEO. I have proof of delivery, but no reply yet and the calls are still coming. We'll see how it goes...
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
To REFUSE business of such customers. If system knows Mrs ForgetMyWardrobe has 53% chance to return what she tries to buy, DO NOT SELL IT TO HER. Explain why, say how sorry you are, escort her off. Store can refuse selling to anyone -- that's their right. But this situation is way more honest, than trying to sell something to the customer and then refuse taking it back, even though you claim you would.
Hyperom.com
I say we the consumer start a database for companies that obtain personal data without permission, and blacklist them.
Ok, All BS aside, there's just something a bit creepy about a gay man taking a bunch of little boys out in the woods. 2 cents, Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
My favorite is that fat gal at the grocery store with 6 kids in the cart. Instead of BUYING a package of cookies, she steals them from the store. You've all seen her, she just opens up a bag, takes some out, hands them to the kids, and puts the bag back on the shelf - open. My second favorite is that moron who has to stick her thumbnail into all the produce that she doesn't buy. My third favorite is the jackass who steals gasoline by tanking up and driving off.
You know what all these things have in common - they make the price I pay for things go up. I buy the things I want with my hard earned cash. So it really ticks me off when some people start trying to get something for nothing. For every person who gets something for nothing, there are usually a lot of folks who get nothing for something. You may not be paying the tab, but I guarantee you that the tab is there and it's getting paid by someone.
I hope stores do this. I think it will help them lower their prices, which will be good for me.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
This sounds like the 80/20 scam some consultants were selling businesses in the 90's. It went like this: Since most of your revenue comes from 20% of your customers you can discard, mistreat or ignore the other 80% and just concentrate on getting customers who behave like that top 20%. The bad customer database is just a variation of this mind virus, It is an asinine idea that managers end up blaming something or someone else for its failure. In reality you can always identify some portion of your customer base that is undesirable even after you discard one set of so called bad customers. So I would say to retailers let your competition try this out first and see what it does to their revenue.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
10 years ago my "reputable" auto insurance firm did me wrong.., After some research I switched to Erie which consumer Reports listed as low cost and civilized. Erie has treated me well and remains one of the more affordable firms. They dont advertise much and pass the savings on to the customer. Unlike Geico and with thier little animated gecko.
I'm used to shopping in Japan and China where there is a simple return policy - you buy it you keep it. That's it. There are no returns. Period.
If its defective and you just bought it you are supposed to deal with the product's company not the store.
Much like spam filters, it will work for about 70% of its intended targets, the remaining 20% will either be legitimate returns/purchases being "flagged", and the final 10% would get away with it, with "new" techniques. I dont care, if I get denied to purchase something in a store newpaper will hear about it, so will my blog, and I wont shop there. :)
They've stopped now, or so I've read. I never gave them my info, and just told them "I don't want to have my info sold to a bunch of mailing lists, so I don't give it out".
But I did, one time, tell them my last name. (That's all he had asked, and I gave it, though I hadn't planned to give them a phone number and address and such.) He didn't ask any more information, though. When I got my receipt, it had the name, phone number, and address of someone else with the same last name.
If youre pissed at a nursery, put weedkiller in the watering system instead of fertilizer- most decent nurseries have a centralized watering system, so this effectively kills everything.
(note: a guy I know from high school did this at a place he worked, caused 40k in damage, and somehow got away with it.)
Sorry, but I can't think of anyone willing to get into a fistfight with a customer over their minimum wage retail cashiering job.
When would this happen? Maybe if you had a really bad customer, or if you're in a small non-mall outlet. Most malls do have security, and if somebody is getting out-of-hand you can always call in the big boys to have them deal with.
I do wonder about the legality of this. If ability for a return is part of the sales clause given when an item is sold, how can they not accept the return except in cases of obvious neglect/damage etc?
However, I don't think that this system is bad, just not used correctly in the current form. If there's a bad customer (one of those who constantly returns items, or buys a TV for Superbowl Sunday and then returns it on Monday, etc) stores should be able to track him or her. However, deny the purchase, not the return. If a store takes my money, they're taking my business - including the possibility of a return.
If they are worried enough about my bad return-record to not take my money in the first place, more power to 'em, but let's not try and have our cake and eat it too.
when you check'em, make sure you lift each egg to ensure it has not cracked on the underside.
Yeah, right.
First, let me give you kudos for passion and creativity in communications. That letter is expressive and clearly communicates that you have become frustrated with your "Gap" experience.
One thing that you might consider is putting yourself in the shoes of the recipient. The person who reads this missive will not understand your clever quotes and literary allusions. They will understand that you are unhappy and that you need some assistance, but I fear that they will not care very much about your needs.
A letter which may be more likely to get the results you desire would address the ocncerns of a corporate exec. The execs get up every day trying to find ways to boost profits while satisfying customers needs. They design policy and processes to handle the vast majority of processes, but frequently process breakdowns are overlooked. You are in one of those situations.
What you need is to appeal for help to someone who has the authority to override corporate policy. The person reading the letter will be most likely to act if they believe that you are sincere, want to maintain a relationship with their company, and they have to *want* to help you.
As it stands, while you have expressed your frustration in a very creative way, I doubt that the recipient will do much other than perceive you as a kook. (No offense intended. I have no idea whether you are a kook. For that matter, you may see me as one.)
You can find some great tips on getting what you want in dealing with others from this book. I recommend that all geeks (and non-geeks) read How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.
Sorry that Gap shafted you. (I have no relationship with, nor axe to grind WRT GAP. I have not shopped there in at least 15 years.)
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The largest employers in the world are:
The Red Army
Indian Railways
The NHS
As the British health service is free at the point of use and therefore does not issue receipts, and one assumes no-one pays to be a Chinese soldier, the conclusion must be that the con-artists were returning unused railway tickets. Bizzare...
"You can't cheat an honest man."
FUCK YOU AND YOUR REPUBLICAN VALUES! You evil red-staters are going to ruin this country with your honesty and integrity! If we didn't have so many goddamn people doing the right thing all the time, the poor wouldn't be starving and there'd be a cure for AIDS - and disabled people would get up out of their chairs and walk again. If only you people would modernize your paradigms, you'd realize that socialism works. If you don't like your new plasma TV, you should find a poor person to give it to! DuH!
I work some part time hours at a national bike shop chain (I can't afford the hobby without the discount hehehe)... We try to get everyone's name and address when we make a sale so that if a receipt is lost and the customer has a return, we can look up the receipt.
;p
This reduces risk of "return slip fraud" by a great deal. Also, we issue return slips with the customers name on them and, subject to the discretion of the store manager, only that customer can use the return slip. Of course, the manager can decide to take it from someone else, but having a human being in the chain makes fraud less likely.
We never ever ever refuse a return, we simply require a name and address to do it, and 99.9% of customers LIKE our system. They LIKE having the ability to look up a lost receipt, and when presented with the option of putting their name in the computer and on the receipt for that purpose, about 90% of them agree and say it's a good idea. The other 10% are typically small cash sales like a tube or other small consumable (tubes, lube, other things that can't be returned anyway).
Of course, name capture is also great for plastering the Earth with our catalogs..