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.

Comments

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay with cash.

Re:Easy solution

[Dr. Zed]

Clearly, denying you a return because you were flagged by a computer database is an abuse of their return policy.

It is not that clear. This sort of information isn't generally used against people who are following the return policy (e.g. have a receipt, return within time period allowed). This type of info is used against people who habitually return items without a receipt. They might be willing to take you at your word once or twice, but if you make a habit of returning questionable stuff on a regular basis, they will stop bending their rules for you.

There are a lot of people who know that if they make a fuss at a return counter, they can generally get a store to give them money for just about anything and use that to return old stuff just to get new replacements for free. In the end, this kind of abuse is reflected in the prices stores charge.

Re:Easy solution

[brianosaurus]

Wh-wh-wh-what?

Are you saying that ACTUAL STEALING carries less penalty than some sort of nebulous pseudo-theft of "intellectual property"?

That actual criminals get off easier than high-school kids trying to find new music?

Re:Easy solution

[brianosaurus]

At least we know where our "morals" stand.

Then again, how can a country that "has to" imprison more of its population than any other in the world have any sort of moral leg to stand on? America might become the best place to do business, but is it really worth it if America is not the best place to live?

Which is more important?

The FCRA should be expanded.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

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.

Re:The FCRA should be expanded.

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't notice, google is open to the public. You can search the database just as easily as the employer can.

The problem with these databases is that you can be denied goods or services based from multiple stores on a shared database that you can't verify for accuracy or correct if it is inaccurate.

This is why there are laws governing credit bureaus.

Re:Related link

[Anonymous Coward]

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.'

Worked retail before and this isn't new

[jsimon12]

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.

Re:Worked retail before and this isn't new

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't like it, DON'T shop there

The funny part being that's exactly what the store want you to do.

Dont favor the customer, they wont favor you

[MakoStorm]

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,

Oh boy...

[the arbiter]

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.

Copy protected CDs

[Zorilla]

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.

Mod parent up

[Infonaut]

This is Business 101, as MakoStorm points out clearly. These guys are just shooting themselves in the foot.

Well

[sulli]

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?

Re:Customers need warning...

[blether]

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.

Re:Related link

[Skater]

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

No Sympathy.

[wrathcretin]

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.

Re:That's not discrimination

[Mycroft_VIII]

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