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.
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6423422/
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
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.
Actually, the NYT provides a way of linking directly to stories so that readers of blogs and the like can bypass the registration system. You go to this page and enter the URL of the story you want to link to. When you click "Go", it returns a link to the NYT archives that bypasses 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.
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.
My what big muscles you have. Lifting that heavy store all by yourself.
If I help move lemonade stand equipment, doesn't that count as shop-lifting?
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...
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?
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.
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).
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 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
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!
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 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.
A friend of mine manages a Home Depot - every year - I kid you not - they get christmas trees returned in January.
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.
mebbe they have you flagged in a database somewhere for 'excessive submissions'
just a thought...
http://request-header.info
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'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
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.
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
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.
Depends on your definition of a "modal customer".
A modal customer would be one who, when faced with a need to buy a particular item, pauses everything else until he buys it. By way of comparison, a non-modal customer is capable of multi tasking - background tasks aren't put on hold while he's shopping.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
...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?
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.)
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
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.
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."
You are roughly correct as to what the UCC is, but not that it is a violation of it. It is for returns on an item that "is not suitable for its intended purpose". It is not for items that the customer changed their mind and doesn't want anymore, it is not for items that the customer realizes they already own one of. It is for items that don't do what they say they do, whether due to misleading advertising, or damage or defect. So, the store must accept returns if the item says it has a feature, but it doesn't. (Anything an item's package claims it can do is obviously an intended purpose). It must also accept returns on any item demaged or defective in such a way as to render the item non-functional. For example, a TV with a smashed in tube must be accepted for return. However, if the case is cracked, but the TV still works, they do not have to accept the return, as the item is still fit for its intended purpose. But if you found it cheaper somewhere else, or you realized you already bought one yesterday, then its completely up to the store, they don't have to take it back if they don't want to.
And no, you can't say "But the intent of the purchace was to have a NEW sweater, not the same one again!" Because the law ISN'T about "Intended purpose for purchace," as you have written. Intended purpose means whether or not the item can do what it is intended for. A sweater is for wearing, not for being stylish and unique. If you BOUGHT it to be stylish and unique, and it isn't, that's tough luck for you, its intended purpose is to be worn, and it still can be.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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.
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.
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
. . .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. . . .
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.
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
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
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.
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. :)