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.
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.
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 more annoyed by Best Buy lumping in 'People who only shop during a sale' with 'fraudsters and scammers trying to rip off the company.'
And that's even before getting into their 'non-repair and replacement plans.'
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.
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,
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
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
I don't know why this got modded offtopic, it seems like a valid point. I think people can make up their own mind whether they want to register or not.
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.
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.
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!
I find this *extremely* interesting. First of all, I love Amazon (.ca, .com & .co.uk). Their prices (at least up here in Canada) are not only competitive, but typically much, MUCH cheaper than any other local or national store, online or not.
In regards to customer service, they are absolutely STELLAR. A few examples: ordered a book from the UK that was not available here in Canada/US. The book came in shoddy condition. I emailed & wanted to return the book, but they said don't worry about it, we'll just send you a new copy brand new expedited. It arrived a few days later. I was absolutely stunned.
Second example: ordered a book last year around March for an upcoming class in the fall. Fall arrived, and the prof changed his mind about the book. Amazon.ca says that their return policy is only 30 days, but they took the book back & credited me back the money within days.
There's absolutely no reason for me to shop anywhere else. Yes, it takes a bit for my orders to arrive, but that's just a bit of patience, s'all. I'm sure that their customer service towards me has to do with the fact that I spend at least a thousand bucks at Amazon (.ca & .com, usually) per year, but it's cyclical: I shop there pretty much exclusively because of their great service, and I get their great service because I shop there exclusively :)
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
I agree. But companies are not sharing as much information as they should. They know when someone buys something whether or not they will be able to return it. They should tell the customer when they purchase, letting them change their decision rather than finding out when they try to return it. Of course, this might cost them one last sale, so who's going to do it...
Companies should be able to participate in any legal activity they want to
Obviously. And they can. And they do. Until we decide that companies have an unfair advantage and then we make the activity illegal.
The fact that's it's legal at the moment is irrelevant to the argument about whether it's a good thing.
Funny that you mention it. This system will cause all the bad customers to flock to the stores that do not have that system, thus causing them to lose more money. Therefore they are under more pressure to get this system.
This is not a winnable fight from the perspective of the customer.
badness 10000
I sent a nasty e-mail to Best Buy Friday after I visited a store. They completely ignored me for the half hour I spent walking around the audio department (and they were NOT busy - it was Friday morning right after they opened), but when I finally bought something they had no problem stopping me at the door to check my receipt. As I summed it up in the e-mail, "Before the sale: totally ignore me; After the sale: treat me like a criminal".
The response I got said they'd share my comments with that store's management.
--RJ
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.
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.
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).
---Some of regular customers (contractors doing $10k a month in our store alone) always needed manager approval to return ANYTHING. (High shrink items or not). Needless to say the managers came as quickly as possible for these customers, but still it was a hassle for everyone involved.
If I was one of those contracters, I'd "schedule" a meeting with the store manager and corporate on my cell phone (on loudspeaker, mind you) and get that grift setteled out. Someone who buys on average 10K$ a month has lots of clout.
And better yet is if the city has 3 or 4 different "construction" stores like Lowes, Menards, and such. A threat of just doing your 10K of business elsewhere is a big threat.
So you're saying that if someone don't get their way, they should throw a tantrum? How about if someone sees something that they'd like, but the price to too high? Should they sit on the floor and scream "I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it!"?
It occurs to me that there is a reason children are punished for behaving like that. I assume that you were just indulged in all your wishes. Hope I never see you in a store.
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.
Did you actually ASK for help? Maybe they're finally getting the hint that most of us don't want to be bothered until we ask for help. I don't think I'm alone in that desire.
So, who do you think is going to make more money and stay in business longer, a store who will sell to anybody or one that artificially limits the number of its customers and annoys the crap out of the ones it has with more and more ersatz bullshit? There were good reasons for the old motto: "The customer is always right." Because you can't do business without customers. The customers go away, your business dies. Any business that puts its own shortterm interests ahead of its customers' satisfaction is on the road to ruin.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
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.
Hold on- people give their real info? Because I know all my cards are gaining a bunch of point for Bill gates at 666 Dis Lane.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
but when I finally bought something they had no problem stopping me at the door to check my receipt.
So why'd you stop at the door? I just keep walking. What are they going to do? Ask you again to stop? Same for fry's. If they lay a finger on you, it's assault. If they attempt to restrain you, it's criminal detainment (or whatever charge may be appropriate to your state - this assumes you did not commit a crime there).
So yeah, just keep walking.
funny munging
. . .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. . . .
Actually it depends on how and why you are limiting your customer base. If you get an actual abusive customer (very rare, I'm not talking customers who simply won't accept poor service or products) that is costing you money every time they 'buy' somthing only to use it for what they need it for then return it under some specious claim then you HAVE to eventually stop doing bussiness with them.
If a customer is costing you money you have to find out why and fix it. If it's because you have a crap product or service it is your fault and you should fix it, this accounts for 90%+ of such customers in my experience. Most of the remaining simply don't have the information needed to have a reasonable expectation and this is somthing the bussiness can correct as long as they explain things simply and RESPECTFULLY.
The other 1% percent are the people trying to scam free stuff by making up bogus complaints. Those are the only 'customers' you look at banning. And even then you don't ban them at first, you start out being nice, accepting what they say on face value, even appoligizing when you KNOW it's thier screw up not yours. You'd be supprised how often many scammers loose the heart to scam you if you treat them well enough at first. In the end you may wind up with a few 'customers' you litterly can't afford to have if you wan't to stay in bussiness, these are the heartless scummbags and complete and utter idiots who simply cost you too much money no matter what, and if your treating everyone else right the good word of mouth will show up the complaints of the idiots and scammers who friends and family already know them well enough to ignore thier 'advice' anyway.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Yes, especially with homeowner's insurance, you have to figure out if the long-term costs of making a non-catstrophic claim like that are worth paying for or financing the problem out of your own pocket.
I personally think it's a form of fraud for an insurance company to do what Allstate (and it's not just Allstate that does this) does.
At least the premiums shouldn't stay tripled for the lifetime of the mortgage, and will come down eventually.
Your car insurance works the same way. Get into too many accidents, whether they're your fault or not, and you get put into the shitmagnet...er, high-risk category.
If your insurance on your car is $100/mo ($600 bianually), you got to figure that a $2000 claim for repairing your headlight and bumper for rear-ending someone, or replacing the door you screwed up when backing up into the garage, etc., is worth doubling that rate for the next 3 years...
And some insurance companies are quicker at this than others. I'm more wary of low-priced insurers, because one claim with them will probably boot you into the higher-risk (and more profitable) categories.
GEICO has been accused of doing this in the past (take a lifetime 0-claim safe driver, driving a Buick, who gets a silly speeding or no-stop ticket, who gets dropped by the company, and can only be insured by fly-by-night high premium companies now. So much for loyalty).
I can't wait until companies start categorizing employees for pinkslips/downsizing based on their credit reports. And you thought HP's mandatory minimum substandard performer ratings were bad...
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..
You know, you just might be on to something here. Republicans are also more likely to be able to afford overseas holidays. American tourists are not known for their nice manners in other countries. If they were all Republicans it makes sense.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
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.
Ah, that was cute. "The customer is always right" is an attitude that will get you fired in retail. The real rule is "The boss is always right. The customer is only right when the boss says so."
No, in retail, the days of worrying about keeping customers happy are pretty much over. Retailers have been practicing being rude and inattentive to customers over the past decade or two, and have found that people will keep coming back as long as your prices are okay, your hours are okay, and your employees don't actually assault customers.
That's a slight exaggeration, but not so much as you might think. These days the defense of anything rude or customer unfriendly will be that the practice is "industry standard." That is, everybody else is just as rude and customer unfriendly (or close enough that nobody cares about the difference). As long as everybody gets ruder at about the same pace, then everybody can save money and watch their profits increase.
You will see continued deterioration in the areas of returns/exchanges, accurate and clear signing, bowling ball factor (the probability that a bowling ball rolled down an aisle at random would strike an employee), pushiness of cross-selling (especially branded credit cards), and employee time and attention to customers. This will continue until somebody someplace decides to give good customer service, and people are willing to pay a little more to get it.
I started working in retail 15 years ago, and I've been out of it for just over a year now. Customer service is much more a buzz-word and much less a priority than it was 15 years ago.
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. :)