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'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.
So who's going to create a blacklist of those companies that use this service?
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.
Agreed. It's like checking credit card IDs in retail - the credit card companies have the idea that if the card doesn't match the ID, the guy at the counter is supposed to confiscate the card. Sorry, but I can't think of anyone willing to get into a fistfight with a customer over their minimum wage retail cashiering job.
That said, I don't think a consumer blacklist is really that bad of an idea, provided it wasn't abused (big caveat, I know). There are people who complain about everything. They're the ones who say their food is too cold so they can get a free meal, bend a bookcover and then point it out to get a discount on a book, say a customer service rep was too slow so they get a free consultation... whatever. These people exist, and I've had to deal with them. Quite frankly, they aren't worth the time and effort I've had to put into them, and I wish I had a way of saying nope, I'm sorry, but you have a long history of being a jackass and I'm not going to help you.
That's just a fantasy of mine, though... I can't think of any good way to regulate or maintain a list like this. I'm sure that smarter people than I are trying to figure it out, but they haven't seemed to either (not yet, anyway).
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
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).
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 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
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