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.
"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.
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...
So who's going to create a blacklist of those companies that use this service?
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.
They're not making $1500. Now, in the clothing, margins are quite high, I agree, but let's say they're making $1200 gross. If the merchandise is returned, they restock and sell. After their overhead kicks in (returning stock is VERY expensive, except in some circumstances, as in same-day returns) they're lucky to hit $600-$700 IF they sell all the merchanise. It also messes up the numbers for the day, week, month, quarter, etc... And it's usually the local store that gets the blame for this, not head office checking in. After running a PC parts store for a few years, I got totally fed up with people thinking I was making a killing off stock. I buy an HD for $80, sell it for $105-$110. Some guy returns the thing a week later. By the time the week rolls by, it has depreciated by $10.00. Also, the next customer coming in to buy the think complains it's used. Out the door for $75.00. If it breaks within the warranty period, I've just lost about $50.00 or more, because the customer with the dead HD gets a replacement on the spot or next day. Even though the HD has depreciated in a year to costing $60, I've got to come up with the funds out of cash flow. Part of this problem is the internet and eBay deluding people into thinking that they can buy equipment and supplies at prices lower then we can buy them at wholesale. I had one guy tell another customer that the copy of MS Office 200 Pro I was selling for $325 was a rip-off, that I was making $250 on it, becuase he can get it online for $50.00. I was making $30.00 on the software, and that was because it was already in stock and I was paying no shipping to get it here. The end result is that we have to pick and choose our customers carefully. There were some customers who got blacklisted locally: I would call 2-3 other stores around and tell them the latest story about him before he got to them after trying to wrangle a deal out of me, and they would do the same for me. He caught on and got very angry. One time this particular guy swore he was going to get the police involved. I dialed the number for him and handed him the phone.
That's not exactly insightful. Sure it's great if all you want to do is buy something, but if you need to return items, they want information. Electronics Boutique has apparently been tracking returns for a while. Back when Blood Bowl and Full Throttle came out on the PC, I had serious issues with Blood Bowl not working in my cd-rom drive. I exchanged the discs three times then swapped for Full Throttle. The employee mentioned that I'd been doing a lot of returns and wouldn't be able to exchange or return anything for some time because it showed my exchanges. They still get you at return time.
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).
...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
Except that the company almost certainly does better when they allow returns like that- it encourages people to buy now and check later. A large number of purchases that didn't need to made will never be returned even after the customer realizes it. The company wins.
No. Pay with a credit card.
All credit card companies offer cardholder protections, including refunding your money if you have a problem with the merchant.
Clearly, denying you a return because you were flagged by a computer database is an abuse of their return policy.
Simply dispute the charge because the store refused to take back the merchandise. You'll get your money back, the store will get a fee for having the purchase charged back, and you'll probablly end up keeping the merchandise (unless your credit card issuer wants it).
I'm reminded of H&M, where they tell customers over the PA that they can just return items instead of waiting to try out the clothes. I guess the practice of buying and returning clothes isn't as bad as it sounds. Plus, there are situations where you simply can't know if it'll fit, be it because you're buying for someone else, (the following mostly applies to women, i guess ;) you don't have the support you want to try it with, or (you think...) you're bloated.
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
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
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.
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.
I used this tactic with Sam's Wholesale Club over an issue with a declined rebate, worth $50. I told them that unless I received a satisfactory response, I'd cancel my menbership (getting a $30 refund from it) and never step foot in their store again.
Within two weeks, I had my rebate check.
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
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.
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
In the UK you can return undamaged goods no questions asked for a short period (either 14, 28, or 30 days, I forget which) after you purchased them (sale of goods act). You can also return goods up to a year after you purchase them if they are `not suitable for the purpose for which sold' (trade descriptions act). These are statutory rights, and are not affected by any store policies - any store that does not allow returns within these periods is liable for prosecution.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Just in case you didn't notice - you can always write to the Data Protection Officer for each of the companies that provide those cards to get a copy of every bit of information they hold on you. They mustn't return it in any kind of coded form. And you can legally challenge any of that information if its invalid.
I had to do this to get Hutchison 3 to remove various bits of crap off my credit record. Worked fine. Shame they suck so much I had to that though...
At no time did we ever violate a customer's "rights" to abuse the law. We simply denied him access to our services and products in order to continue abusing them. This may have skirted the law, but he was welcome to file suit against us. I gave someone the number for the lawyer referral line once. (don't get me wrong, these were extreme cases, 1 out or 1000 -- if they had freinds they would tell, that would save us the trouble.)
There do exist legal protections for customers where retailers have to accept returns on purchases if they are faulty et all, allowing them to get a replacement, their money back or a third option that I just can't remember, or perhaps I'm hallucinating.
There does need to be a balance with the laws to protect consumers and business alike, as there are consumers that try to wrought any system in place for their sole benefit at the expense of others.
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
I would be upset if a company used this kind of database to refuse service to people who only bought things on sale. Yes, companies take losses on sale items. It's not the customer's job to insure they buy enough other things that the company makes a profit in the end, though. If the company doesn't want the risk of people buying only what the company is losing money on, then they should adjust their prices so they aren't losing money on it.
I worked at a local Home Depot for awhile.
As part of the employee training, we were told some stories about the Despot's "crazy" return policy.
The one where I worked used to be a BJ's or Sam's or something, one of those huge food wholesalers.
An old woman brought in a frozen 6 pack of blueberry muffins, that she had had in the freezer for more than 2 years, because "she didn't like them", and the refund was granted.
Another guy came in with a dead-looking plant, a shrubbery. He said that he had bought it and planted it, and now it was dead, he wanted a new one (no matter that it was late fall now, and all the leaves are off the plants, etc). The return (store credit) was granted in this case, too...
But, a few hours later, one of the cart-return guys noted that one of the shrubs in front of the store had been dug up. This guy had just come in, dug up a plant from in front of the store, and "returned" it for some store credit.
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 once worked at a large office where it was suspected a former employee placed about a dozen eggs in different places in the duct work. It seems after sitting there for a few days they finally cracked and release their nasty payload. The smell got into everything. They had an outside company come in, scrub down every inch of duct work and clean the chairs, carpet, couches, etc.
We also had a problem with employees dropping straightened out paper clips into the vents of monitors. Fire up the monitor and you got a loud bang with a little smoke. I was one of the guys who had to swap them out so it wasn't much fun for me.
The bigger question is why. Did they really hate the company that badly? Is this their only voice?
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
That practise is actually largely aimed at the cashiers. A simple way of shoplifting is to have your buddy be a cashier and not charge you for stuff. There would be no trace of such a crime, unless they check at the doors.
Congratulations, you've nailed the slippery slope thing down.
Let me ask you... How far should companies be allowed to go? Should they refuse people entry into the store, because they stood around in the store for a long time, and didn't buy anything?
Next up, open a store that doesn't admit blacks or hispanics, because they are less likely to have lots of money to spend.
No, companies should not be allowed to "shop around" for their customers, and tracking systems like this should be looked at very cautiously.
If your store is loosing money on returns, then you should change the return policy, not have a seperate set of rules.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant